■ p 







. 



$Sr 





sTx.-'l 






■b 






■ 

■ 

■ 




• • ■ .*>; ■ 4 ft ' n TvY-- I 



K*' 




mm: 

-4* ■ 






■ 



■ 






** . 



■ 









■ 












I ■ 

I I 






n< ifctAstfrti' 



THE 



Baptismal Ctmtoimstj ; 



ITS EXCEEDING SINFULNESS. 



The servant of the Lord must not strive. — Paul. 



ELDER J. HARTZEL. 

AUTHOR OF "EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY," " KINGDOM 
OF HEAVEN AND ITS GOVERNMENT," ETC. 






Oskaloosa, Iowa : 

CENTRAL BOOK CONCERN. 

1877. 



V 




Copyright by 
CENTRAL BOOK CONCERN, 

1877. 



TO THE READER 



The title to the following pages may appear as an 
unmeaning novelty or as an uncharitable utterance. 
Many learned and pious men have participated in this 
long-continued and exciting controversy. We will 
and should be slow to believe that these have sinned 
by so doing. There may be extenuating circum- 
stances, but there can be no justifying causes for the 
controversy, without involving that infallible revela- 
tion of which the ordinance of baptism is a part. 

If it was unwise legislation on the part of the insti- 
tutor, it should be abolished. If, as a specific revela- 
tion, it is wanting in fullness, that want should be sup- 
plied. If the language by which it has been trans- 
mitted is obscure, and therefore, not adapted to the 
intelligence of those whose submission it claims, then 
it should be corrected and revised. On either hypoth- 
esis controversy would be of no avail. 

It has long been our settled conviction that this 
controversy is sinful; more dishonoring to Jesus 
Christ than to his professed followers. 

In our earlier ministry we had many oral debates 
with dissenting ministers. We usually had some 
cause for self-congratulation, and in every case our 
advocacy was approved by those we represented in 
the contest; but when the heat of discussion had 



IV TO THE READER. 

subsided, then came days of sadness. Then the 
question would arise, what of all this ? The parties 
on the opposite side, with few exceptions, would be of 
the same opinion still. Those who were, or affected 
to be, neutral, became more indifferent, and unbe-. 
lievers were gratified and more confirmed in skepti- 
cism ; for if that which purports to be a divine ordi- 
nance is involved in so much uncertainty that min- 
isters of equal learning and undoubted piety cannot 
agree as to what that ordinance is, then it can have 
no claim on any rational man. This conclusion 
would be readily transferred to every other religious 
duty. 

Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the con- 
tradictory views of the contending parties. That 
party which defends both infant and believers' affu- 
sion does not agree among themselves as to the mean- 
ing of the ordinance. Some affirm it be regeneration, 
others that it is a thing quite indifferent as respects 
salvation. Those who advocate believers' immersion, 
and exclude all other subjects and modes, do not agree 
as to what baptism signifies. A picture might be 
drawn of the diversity which exists of a most start- 
ling character. That diversity is such, seeing that 
truth is one, as almost to excite a doubt whether all 
the parties be not more or less in error. 

Respectfully submitted by the 

Author. 



CONTENTS. 



PAKT I. 



Was there ever any reason for this controversy? — If the 
necessity of debate does not inhere to the ordinance, 
the strife began in sin — Will this controversy be settled 
by controversy ? — If baptism was a theoretic question, 
we would say to the disputants, be still — If controversy 
could bring peace, would not peace have come before 
now? — All the old issues remain — The union move- 
ment has added a new issue — And another, the unbap- 
tized have all the joy the baptized have — Restiveness 
chronic — Baptismal nervousness — Doubtful whether 
the full benefit of baptism can be enjoyed — The dispos- 
ing motive must come from the ordinance — It may be 
right in its formalities and yet not baptism — Many of 
honest purposes are held in suspense — Stumbling blocks 
— The ministry has not yet decided what baptism is 
— Mutual crimination — Party defense — Reproach to 
Christ — Sinfulness a novelty — Only a conviction of its 
sinfulness can still the strife — Not essential, will not 
promote peace — Mutual Christian recognition has not 
made peace — All parties must have baptism really or 
constructively — Can only worry one. another— Nothing 
decisive for aggression or defense — Great names on 
both sides — Lexicons and the classics appealed to on 
both sides — These are material for the strife — The 
chureh must have baptism — She must have the commis- 
sion to teach and baptize — The controversy holding the 
union forces in abeyance — This controversy more than 
any other lies at the bottom of the great schism — Bap- 
tism has now a catholic importance — Jesus Christ 
more deeply involved than the church — Baptism induc- 
tive — Jesus gave no explanation — Reason for contro- 
versy — Mistake or design — No controversy in the apos- 



VI CONTENTS. 

tolic age— The utterances of the Spirit on Pentecost 
gave the type of baptism — If the word baptize has but 
one meaning there should be uniformity — If the word 
baptize has three meanings there should be diversity — 
Immersionists are the aggressors in this controversy — 
Baptizo untranslated — Baptizo translated immerse — 
The concessions of Luther, Calvin, Stuart, etc., worth 
nothing — This like other controversies does not termi- 
nate upon itself — Consequences — Kestricted member- 
ship — Restricted communion — Christ has been misrep- 
resented — Reader, have you not one falling tear? — 
Pages ------ 17-74 

PART II. 

Preliminary — The baptism of John — Has its own history 
The relation between John and Jesus — Preparer — Pre- 
pared for — John first man and last man sent by God to 
baptize with water — That he might be made manifest 
to Israel, therefore am I sent to baptize with water — 
The baptism of Jesus extraordinary — Strangeness — 
Humiliating act — The grandest display — Introduction 
of the Son by the Father — John's ministry local and 
sectional — Inductive — The mode of John's baptism 
decisive — The time when it ceased — Another baptism — 
John's baptism distinguished by the noun John — The 
baptism Christ ordained has no prefix nor affix — The 
first public act of Jesus was his baptism — his last offi- 
cial act was to command baptism — His last promise to 
the world, shall be saved — Matthew and Mark the only 
witnesses on the origin of baptism — Luke the only wit- 
ness on its application — Luke only a reporter — He 
reported results — His reports were addressed to an 
individual — Luke selected the word baptized to report 
results — The ordinary reported with brevity — The 
extraordinary in full detail — The Gentiles baptized 
with the Holy Spirit — How understood by Peter and 
the believing Jews — a confirmation of Gentile rights — 
Can never occur again for the same object — Did not 
supercede baptism — Cornelius the connecting link — 
Came within the specifications of the prophecy of God 
— Remission of sins not a promise of Spirit baptism — 
Nine formal reports of conversions — All these reports 
of conversions end with the word baptized — What the 



CONTENTS. Vll 

apostles said and Christ confirmed — The apostles 
preached and Christ worked — Misapplication of the 
signs — The love of the marvelous in conversion — Luke's 
style of reporting conversions abandoned by all parties 
save one — Corresponding departure in the converting 
means — Both sin and shame in this controversy. — 
Pages - 75-181 

PART III. 

Allusions to baptism in the epistles to the churches — 
Eeminders — Object of baptism not exhausted in con- 
version — Baptism not regeneration — Baptism not a sign 
— Baptism sanctifying — Baptism setting apart — Baptism 
is putting on Christ — Faith in Christ and baptism into, 
brought Jews and Gentiles into unity — Exhortation 
to keep the unity— At present the unity to be attained — 
E. N. Potter, D. D., in E. A.— The unity of Christ's 
church present not future — A Pauline idea — Rev. 
James Davis, in E. A. — The Church of God has never 
been otherwise than one, One Lord, one faith, one bap- 
tism — This is a contested point — Perfect oneness not 
essential to existence — The church a divine institution 
— Self-restoring energies — Eecuperative energies at 
work now— Union the great question — Rev. E. F. Cook, 
of Paris, in E. A. — It is not necessary that I should add 
* * that a closer relationship should be established 
between members and their living Head; that men 
should cease to say I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am 
of Cephas — Contradictory views and statements before 
the E. A. — Sects are not comr&anded to keep the unity 
of the Spirit — Not one epistle addressed to the church 
of sects — Brethren, you say men should cease to say 
I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas — You disclaim 
sectism — The world is looking to you to work out the 
great problem of unity — Your failure in this would be 
a great misfortune.— Pages - - 183-260 

PART IV. 

On subjects and modes of baptism — Luke reports all 
classes save infants- — Parents the natural guardians — 
Could have no motive without command — If such com- 
mand had been given it would have been recorded 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

Could we have the history of pedo-baptist churches 
without infant baptisms — No mention of an infant 
church membership relation in the epistles to the 
churches — The child relation is of frequent mention 
— The book knows no more of infant baptism than of 
angel baptism — How came it? — Origin unknown — Pedo- 
baptists say it was from the beginning — This claim 
examined — Pedo-baptists assume that infant baptism 
and believers' baptism are one — Examined — Original 
sin and infant baptism began nearly at the same time 
— The first claim for apostolic tradition by Origen — The 
modes of baptism — On this the Scriptures are barren 
— Pedo-baptist literature fruitful — Two subjects and 
three modes need much classification — The first law for 
sprinkling by Pope Stephen, 753 — Immersion or sprink- 
ling declared indifferent 1311 — Sprinkling established 
in Scotland in 1559 — Found its way into England in the 
reign of Elizabeth — Not authorized by the established 
church — Pouring and sprinkling — Eivalry — On sub- 
jects and modes the New Testament writers have said 
nothing — Subjects and modes human inventions — Sub- 
jects and modes the cause of the baptismal controversy 
— The controversy can be settled by changing two plu- 
ral nouns — By striking out the letter s after subjects 
and modes — Design — Primary — Secondary — Departures 
Anabaptists — A public discussion — Anabaptists im- 
prisoned — Put to death — Primary design not church 
membership — Campbell and Rice's debate on design — 
Baptism " sign" of remission of sins examined — Should 
it be thought incredible that Christ should have given 
such an ordinance fo* such an object — The design of 
baptism and remission of sins fell together — Must rise 
together.— Pages - 265-332 

CONCLUSION. 

Appeal to the unbaptized reader. —Pages - 332-337 



THE 

Baptismal Controversy; 

ITS EXCEEDING SINFULNESS. 

CHAPTER I. 

Was there ever any reason for this controversy ? 
If not, it was and is and evermore will be sinful — 
exceedingly sinful. Like all other controversies) it 
has two sides. Both sides may be sinful : if one is 
not, the other must be. If the truth side is justifi- 
able, the error side is unjustifiable, and therefore 
sinful. 

If the necessity of debate is not inherent in the 
ordinance, then the strife begati in sin and has been 
perpetuated in sin. Perhaps neither party in the 
strife would seriously affirm that the real causes of 
the issues were enclosed within the ordinance itself, 
as that would be a reflection on the wisdom of the 
Lawgiver ; but they would mutually criminate eaoh 
other with being the cause of the strife. 

Will this controversy ever be settled by contro- 
versy? The stronger probabilities are it will not. 
If the Adventists will have to wait as long as the 
baptismal belligerents, I fear they will turn infidels, 
and say the Lord will never come. From the days 
2 



W THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

of Roger Williams until now, there has been some 
gain on the side numerically the weakest ; but this 
gain does not include all that belongs to the insti- 
tution as now understood and foisted into the de- 
bate. On the ground of any reasonable or possible 
progress, judging the future by the past, how long 
will it be before the parties will be ready to sign a 
proclamation of peace? 

If baptism was a doctrinal, or merely a theoretic 
question, we would say to the disputants, be still, 
lay your hand upon your mouth, as the shortest 
and most certain road to peace. But baptism, with 
the consent of the foreseeing Christ, does not be- 
long to that category of questions. The time was 
when the dogmas of Calvinism and Armenianism- 
were the all-absorbing issues ; when sovereign grace 
and free grace, free will and coerced will, limited 
atonement and general atonement, total' depravity 
or a partial, incidental depravity, etc. r were the 
chosen pulpit themes and the burden of almost 
every Sabbath-day ministration. And the accept- 
ability of the gospel sermon was decided by the 
logic and clearness with which the preacher main- 
tained his side of the argument and discomfited 
his opponents. But these are no more living issues. 
The pulpit knows them no more. But these once 
much^fretted and angry debater have ceased, and 
neither special grace nor common grace is now the 
status of evangelical faith. 

These controversies were not settled by contro- 
versy. Silence was the opiate that put them to 
sleep. John Calvin is dead and James Arminius is 
dead, and their philosophies could not long sur- 
vive. John had no commission from Jesus Christ 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 19 

to preach sovereign grace, and James had no com- 
mission to preach free grace ; and those who had 
adopted their teachings as being doctrinally or the- 
oretically true may forbear without jeopardizing 
their ministerial soundness. But baptism was or- 
dained by the ever-living Christ, therefore it will 
be the subject of an ever -living controversy or an 
ever- living peace. 

If controversy could bring peace, would not 
peace have come to the church before now ? Would 
there not at least be some encouraging indications 
of a better understanding after one thousand years' 
debate? Would not some of the older points 
under discussion have been agreed upon and with- 
drawn ? The opposite to this is the feet. All the 
old issues remain, and new ones are rising up, and 
•the area of the strife is continually enlarging. 

Some fifty years ago the design of baptism was 
added to the old issues of subject and mode. This 
has from its beginning been the most exciting and 
warmly contested phase in the debate. More re- 
cently the union movement has hurled another 
brand into the fire, namely, that the advocates of 
believers' immersion are preventing, by their incor- 
rigible obstinaey, that long prayed for and much 
desired object — the union of Christians. The one 
party is demanding a more enlarged Christian lib- 
erty, and the other is demanding a higher degree of 
conscientiousness and respect for the authority of 
•Jesus Christ. 

If the union of Christians shall depend on the 
adjustment of this issue, we fear the Lord will find 
a divided, sectarian church at his coming. Perhaps 
<one party will say, Lord, we could not come into 



20 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEESY. 

unity with these brethren, for they would not ac- 
cept our baptism. Lord, we did extend Christian 
fellowship to these brethren, but we could not take 
them into church fellowship, inasmuch as they were 
unbaptized. If this will not be humiliating to one 
or both the parties, it may be to the Lord to learn 
that an ordinance of his appointment had been the 
cause of strife and alienation among his own regen- 
erated children. 

And still more recently another question for ex- 
planation has been sprung upon us : " The unbap- 
tized have all the joy and peace that we, the bap- 
tized have ;" as pious and as zealous. How is it 
to be explained? 

With the prejudice of a Nathaniel it might be 
asked, What good thing cometh from this ? Any- 
thing more speculative than this called-for " explan- 
ation," and as tending to more unprofitable con- 
troversy, could not have been submitted, there 
being no data by which an authoritative explana- 
tion could be given. But this and such like only 
show the -restiveness there is in the popular religious 
mind on this baptismal controversy. It has be- 
come a settled, chronic, head and heart disease. It 
has effected the whole body, and every member is 
effected with a religious baptismal nervousness. It 
may be safely questioned whether any can, at the 
present lime, enjoy the full spiritual benefit of the 
institution. The unbaptized have all partaken, 
more or less, of a controversial spirit, and with 
mixed motives they submit to the ordinance. This 
unhappy and perhaps measurably disqualifying 
state of the convert is, under present circumstances, 
unavoidable, and we doubt not in many cases it 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 21 

Is the source of fruitlessness and short continu* 
ance, and the cause of the many failures. In order 
to an acceptable and a soul-blessing submission to 
the ordinance, the disposing motive must come 
from the ordinance itself — from the authority of 
the command and the blessing promised. But 
with how few can this be the active motive, when 
we take into the account the controversial liter- 
ature and preaching. The unbaptized, as a general 
rule, have taken sides in the strife, and with . par- 
tisan bitterness rather than with the prayer of the 
publican, " God, be merciful to me a sinner," they 
submit to something called baptism, which may be 
right in all its formalities, and yet not that baptism 
Jesus Christ has commanded. 

This is one result of our baptismal controversy, 
and if the purity of the institution does not require 
it and is not promoted by it, then is this contro- 
versy most sinful, and a fearful retribution must 
follow. 

But there are other consequences as legitimate as 
■cause and effect. Very many of honest purposes, 
who would be glad to stand complete in the will of 
the Lord, are held in painful suspense, not know- 
ing, as they say, whether they should be baptized 
in this way or that way, for this object or for that 
object, or for no object. And knowing that bap- 
tism is inductive, (for in this all parties agree), they 
make up their minds to live and die outside of 
•church relations. Then there are others who were 
baptized under these bewildering influences, and 
afterwards doubts arise; and not being able to de- 
cide satisfactorily their own well-meant mistake or 
that of their parents, they are in trouble, not know- 



22 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY^ 

ing whether they should correct that which they 
now believe to have been an error. There are 
many of this class. Some have the moral courage 
to correct their own, or the blunders of others, bufe 
not without great embarrassment. 

This is not taking up, but casting stumbling 
blocks in the way. And who is doing all this? 
and why is it done ? Is there any reason for this? 
And if there is, where is it, and what is it ? 

Then there is another, a large and respectable 
class, who are at least nominal believers in Jesus 
Christ, who, when it comes to baptism, say, and 
have a right to say, thai is a contested point. The 
ministry has not yet decided what baptism is, nor 
yet what it is for — its essentiality is yet in dispute 
among those to whom we must look for spiritual 
guidance. Let them first settle these questions 
among themselves, and then we will hear them. 
Does it not come with an ill grace to propose bap- 
tism to such? What minister that has any fine 
Christian sensibilities, that does not feel embarrassed 
with the presence of such minds? But this skepti- 
cism does not terminate on baptism ; it communi- 
cates itself to every other gospel ordinance, and in 
many cases is the beginning of doubts which lead 
to confirmed unbelief. 

Thoughtful minds out of the church will make 
this controversy a subject of inquiry. Why this- 
long- continued and widely diffused disagreement 
about an ordinance? Why has it been the most 
fruitful cause of dividing Christians in the past, 
and the main obstacle in the way of the union of 
Christians in the present? Is not good will among 
men the greatest social blessing ? Can that which 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 23 

tends to division and alienation be either right or 
good ? These and similar questions crowd upon 
the interested believer and imploringly ask for sat- 
isfactory solution. Will it relieve the trouble for 
one party to criminate the other when equal intelli- 
gence and Christian recognition is extended to the 
other side ? No. This will rather increase than 
remove the trouble of the inquirer. If this be so, 
you Christians are then quarreling for the sake of 
the quarrel, will be a logical conclusion from that 
predicate. Mutual crimination is the only party 
defense. It will not do for the party to acknowl- 
edge that the sin lies at her own door, nor yet that 
the New Testament history of the ordinance is so 
unintelligible that an honest inquirer could not 
read and understand his duty ; for then he would 
justly feel absolved from responsibility, and would 
turn away from the church, her ministry, her bap- 
tism, and her Christ. 

This has been, both in the past and in the pres- 
ent, the legitimate result of this baptismal contro- 
versy. Who will say — who will dare to say — that 
it is not sinful ? — that it is not a reproach to Jesus 
Christ, a scandal to his church, and a great cause of 
offense and stumbling to well disposed sinners. 

The affirmation that this controversy is sinful, is, 
we doubt not, a novelty to many. Perhaps they 
never onca thought of its relation to him who said, 
u Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and 
of the Holy Ghost." The masses of ministers and 
scribes have attached no more sacredness to this 
than to church polities — than to episcopacy orprel- 
.acyr, church finances^, or the duties of a class-leader. 



24 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

In most cases we are left to infer from the flippancy,, 
irreverence, and unscrupulousness of speech, that 
the -controversy is most grateful to their love of 
pugilism^-or to that besetting sin, the love of dema- 
gogism. And very many who have entered the 
arena of this strife are influenced by no higher or 
holier motives than mere party triumph. When 
such are the disposing motives of the pulpit or the 
press, the controversy is exceedingly sinful and most 
dishonoring to God. Duty and the defense of truth 
and righteousness may demand that even such should 
be withstood in debate, but every man must be the 
keeper of his own conscience, and we cannot with- 
stand the conviction that there is both error and 
sin in the contest. 

We are well warranted in saying again, that this 
controversy will never be settled by controversy. 
Nothing but a conviction of its sinfulness, its re- 
proach to Jesus Christ and his church, schismatical 
tendencies, and hindrance to the conversion of the 
world, will ever remove this incubus from the cause 
of Christ. If anything short of this conviction 
woirid or could restore peace, the following point of 
agreement would have done so. With one exception 
all agree that baptism is a non-essential At first 
view one would say this agreement is the beginning 
of the end. If this be so^ why should not any 
administration, whether to a sleeping or a weeping 
infant, or any adult .believer, with little or much 
faith, anything the good people might call baptism, 
be accepted by all parties, if baptism is a non-essen- 
tial ? Such would be the logical and practical and 
charitable suggestion of this agreement. For why 
should a non-essential stand in the way of that great 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 25 

unity, which would give such great power against 
Romanism and infidelity ? The fact is that this 
agreement has not even a remote tendency to har- 
monize either the faith or the practice, for the 
agreement itself is sinful and subversive of the gos- 
pel of Christ. But this agreement is sometimes 
qualified by the word salvation, i. e., baptism is not 
essential to salvation. This qualification should 
only open the door to a greater charity and the un- 
restricted exercise of a wider liberty as respects the 
administration of the ordinance. But even this 
has no uniting influence, no adhesive power, for sin 
can not cure sin. This qualified statement only 
declares that baptism is not essential to a specific 
object — salvation. The parties in the baptismal 
controversy may still regard baptism to be essential 
to some other and important end. Let them speak 
for themselves. " Baptism is essential to church 
membership.^ In this, too, the parties on the gen- 
eral issue as to what baptism is for, agree most 
happily, for none of them will receive the unbap- 
tized into church fellowship. But, then, if church 
membership is essential to salvation, and baptism is 
essential to church membership, then baptism is, by 
a circumlocution, essential to salvation. But, then 
again, if church membership is not essential to sal- 
vation, as all admit, why should not the mere ques- 
tions of subject and mode be matters of easy com- 
promise, and " let every one be fully persuaded in 
his own mind/' be the end of strife. 

There is yet another point of agreement between 
the contending hosts, namely, that none but regen- 
erated persons, (with some the little folks excepted), 
are qualified subjects for baptism. Such only as 



26 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEESY. 

can give satisfactory evidence to the masters of 
assemblies, that God for Christ's sake had forgiven 
their sins. This is a vital agreement, for then 
there remains but little for baptism. It is only 
the formal induction into church membership, and 
that membership not being essential to salvation, 
the logic of this agreement should go far towards 
harmonizing the other differences. At least, so it 
would appear at first view. But neither all these 
points of agreement, nor yet a mutual Christian 
recognition can remove the strife. 

Is there no sin in all this ? Who can believe 
that all the parties are free from partisan selfish- 
ness, laboring only in all their discussions, their 
claims, and conflicts, to do the Master's will ? How 
joyfully we would be conducted to this conclusion 
if the facts would justify it. 

As the issue now stands, there are insurmount- 
able difficulties in the way to peace. The parties 
are too conscientious to make a sinful compromise, 
or to rule out the ordinance. They must have bap- 
tism really or constructively. If they had less 
faith and piety they would do the one or the other. 
Or, if they had more reverence for the supreme 
authority of Jesus Christ, they would quickly settle 
the dispute by a candid appeal to that authority. 
They would turn away from the over-heated con- 
troversial authority, as being untrustworthy. They 
would refer the issues to the inspired historic au- 
thority of the New Testament records as the only 
basis of settlement, and, we doubt not, such an over- 
ture would be accepted. To purge out everything 
controversial is the only way to peace. 

All the parties can do controversially is to worry 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEKSY. 27 

one another. Nothing decisive can come from the 
fields of strife — nothing for aggression on defense. 
The old issues are defended by the old arguments, 
without one ray of new light shining upon our 
darkness. The immersionist may flatter himself 
that the philology of the controversy is being set- 
tled in his favor. He may cite the names of re- 
formers and scholars, as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, 
Stewart, and a host of others, both ancient and 
modern, who have conceded that the word baptize 
means immerse, but their practice contradicted their 
concessions. So, on the other side, names may be 
arrayed against names, that the word baptize has 
only a generic meaning. There is nothing decisive 
in these contradictory authorities. They only keep 
the parties better balanced and aiford material for 
the strife, and add sin to sin. It must, however, be 
admitted that there has been some gain in favor of 
immersion, but that gain has been the result mainly 
of the Bible argument, and not the result of the 
scholastic controversial argument. The former 
addresses itself to the popular mind, while the latter 
fosters the spirit of controversy. 

The long continuance, the earnestness, and spirit 
with which this controversy has been conducted is 
evidence of the great importance the parties attach 
to baptism. They may all unite in belittling the 
institution. They may say it is but an outward 
form. They may say it is not essential to salvation. 
They may sneeringly say water baptism, but their 
determination ta retain and administer the ordinance, 
and their zeal to maintain their own subjects and 
modes, give the lie to all these professions. Such 
reproaches are always incidental to such misfortune,, 



28 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

but that of intrinsic worth will override the odium 
of its enemies and the indiscretion of its friends. 
He that commanded the nations to be taught and to 
be baptized still lives, and his ordination will also 
live. 

What institution could have stood up under such 
a pressure as has been brought to bear against bap- 
tism? Think of the pompous, foolish ceremonies 
with which it was encumbered in the darker ages, 
and the unconscious subjects to which it has been 
administered, in the name of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost. Its fortune might be compared to 
that of woman in the Grecian and Roman states. 
They first degraded her, and then despised her be- 
cause she w r as mean. But man could not live with- 
out woman, and to have woman worthy of his affec- 
tionate esteem, man had to give back to woman the 
rights he had so unjustly taken from her. So with 
baptism. It has been robbed of its native respec- 
tability, and then lightly esteemed. But still the 
church could not hitherto do without it, neither can 
she yet do without it. What she has wantonly 
taken away she will have to give back. When this 
is done the strife will cease. To see the unholiness 
of this warfare we must go back, but not very far. 
In the days of our Puritan fathers, the friends of 
Jesus made baptism persecute baptism. But in the 
process of time it has come to pass that the perse- 
cutor is stretching forth her hand to the once perse- 
cuted, and imploringly begging for a crumb of favor, 
only praying for equal respect. 

What does all this mean to the once despised, to 
the once cast- out, like Hagar and her son, with even 
less than a loaf of bread and a cruse of water? 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 29 

We extend to you a welcome to come back to 
our Father's house and our Father's table. We 
extend to your subject and your mode our un- 
qualified Christian regard, and we only ask of you 
to extend to our subjects and modes the same re- 
gards. This is some concession. But if it be true 
that "honest confession is good for the soul/' a 
more emphatic confession would not be thought 
righteous over much. That something should be 
done that has not yet been done, to more fully purge 
aw T ay the old, puritanical odium, cannot be doubted. 
Time alone will scarcely remove the odor from the 
old cask, without some rinsing. 

We said before, the church could not do without 
baptism : no, she cannot live without it. It is as 
intimately ■connected with the very existence of the 
church as is the Lordship of Jesus Chris*. Indeed, 
the institution rests upon the supreme Lordship of 
the risen Christ. " All power in heaven and in 
earth is given unto me. Go ye, therefore, teach all 
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching 
them," etc. 

All the great Protestant bodies who have and are 
still making their power felt all over the world, by 
preaching, printing, and publishing the gospel, know 
that they cannot teach, the gospel of Christ, at home 
or abroad, without teaching baptism. They all 
know that when they shall cease to teach and ad- 
minister the ordinance, they have no authority from 
Jesus Christ to teach at all. For all know that if 
baptism was excluded from the great commission by 
which Christ sent the gospel to all nations, through 
all time, " even to the end of the world," that the 



30 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

commission has become a mutilated document) & 
dead lettei^ and all that pertains to baptism from the 
ascension of Christ in the book of Acts and the 
Epistles has died with it, and that part of the New 
Testament that begins with the resurrection and 
glorification of Christ has become defunct ; there- 
fore, the church must have baptism) which implies in 
its formula the invocation of the name of the Fath- 
er, Son, and Holy Spirit. When that propagating) 
aggressive) and proselyting commission shall no 
longer* be the divine basis of church extension, the 
church herself must die. 

The parties in the baptismal strife are seriously 
alive to all this ? and hence they hald on to the ordi- 
nance with a death grasp, however, fully conscious 
that there is both sin and shame) and great loss in* 
volved in the contest. 

There is yet another and an inexorable necessity 
resting upon the church to baptize her converts* 
She knows that baptism is the only divinely or- 
dained formality of induction into church relations. 
In this all the parties agree in both faith and prac- 
tice) however they may differ as to what baptism is ; 
not one of them will receive applicants into mem- 
bership without it. They know that the Head of the 
church has made baptism the visible connecting link 
between himself and his people. So uniform is the 
faith and practice of the church in this that the un- 
converted do not consider themselves members of 
the church until they have submitted to the ordi- 
nance as defined by the party into whose enclosure 
they wish to enter. They may profess their faith 
in Christ. They may profess repentance, assurance 
of sins forgiven) etc. ; but all these w r ill be of no 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 31 

avail so far as church relations and personal church 
rights are concerned. How clear and decisive must 
be the Scripture utterances on these points ? 

There is but one of two ways to get out of 
this baptismal trouble, i. e. } to settle it or to 
abandon Christianity. Unitarians, and that more 
infidel thing called liberal Christianity, have no 
controversy about baptism. As worldly societies, 
they have no use for baptism in the name of 
Jesus Christ. They, having rejected the authority 
of Jesus Christ, have no use for his last great 
commission to teach and to baptize the taught. 
They can lecture before their societies on the same 
basis that a man would lecture before a medical or 
any other worldly society. Their gospel having 
no Christ in it, therefore it has no baptism in it, 
and, therefore, Unitarians and liberal Christians 
have no controversy about baptism. 

Here, then, the Pedo-Baptists and Baptist parties 
have a practical illustration of how they may come 
to terms. Will they do it? Thanks be to God 
and salvation to the world, they will not, because 
they cannot. What remains, then, is that they 
settle this dispute in a way honorable to them- 
selves and honorable to Jesus Christ. 

Hitherto this baptismal controversy has kept all 
the union forces, their prayers, and pleadings, in 
abeyance. The unity of the church is the most 
desirable, the most holy, the most Christ-like as- 
piration of which regenerated hearts are capable. 
To balk that consummation must be eminently 
sinful in the sight of the peace-loving Christ, but 
a refusal to come into the union from honest con- 
victions may not be so. But such convictions 



32 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

should be seriously inquired into. They should 
rest upon a better than a controversial basis. We 
should be well assured that they were not begotten 
by denominational motives, but were the result of 
an intelligent faith in Christ and a heart purpose to 
maintain at any cost the purity of his word. 

What are supposed to be well-defined religious 
convictions can not be put into market, to be 
bought and sold as merchandise. Such convictions 
are sacred to the possessor, and should be gently 
dealt with. The party that would compromise its 
faith on any question of divine truth or duty out 
of the union and for the sake of union, would do 
so when in the union. If, therefore, either party in 
the present issues should, on the principle of con- 
cession, yield its present position in the baptismal 
controversy, it would be a surrender, an abandon- 
ment, of the authority of Jesus Christ. Such a 
union would be as offensive to Jesus Christ as dis- 
union, and infinitely more disastrous to the cause 
of Christianity, for in union there is strength for 
evil as w 7 ell as for good. 

If the parties in the strife are equal as respects 
Scripture authority, (which we will not now affirm 
or deny), the controversy should be immediately 
withdrawn, there being no cause for it. Then that 
obstacle to union would be removed, and a dis- 
graceful controversy would cease. 

It remains now to be seen what the parties will 
do in obedience to the authority of Christ. His 
authority is both affirmative and negative. When 
he prayed for unity among his disciples, he, by 
implication, prayed against disunion. When he 
commanded unity he forbade disunity. It is a 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 33 

matter of painful observation that the parties in 
the baptismal strife speak and act as though bap- 
tism was a kind of monopoly — as though baptism 
exhausted all the authority of the divine Lawgiver. 
That in this the letter of the law must not be vio- 
lated. This is right. This is as it should be. But 
then why hold other duties commanded or forbidden 
by the same authority so loosely? It is to be 
feared that there is more than a sacred regard for the 
ordinance, lying concealed somewhere in the bacfe> 
ground. 

If the severed parties did not, both in word and 
deed, extend equal Christian recognition to each 
other, the case would be otherwise, and the incon- 
sistency not so palpable. But inasmuch as they 
mutually accord discipleship to each other, and then 
knowingly and upon a most extended scale violate 
the law of discipleship, a virtuous if no higher mo- 
tive may inquire, how can these things be ? 

The law of Christ discriminates between the initia- 
tives into the profession of discipleship and the tests 
of continued discipleship. A mistake in the latter 
may be as serious as a mistake in the fomer. The 
baptismal controversy makes the former the weight- 
ier matter of the law, while there is but little at- 
tention given to the latter. Indeed, this has been 
one of the legitimate results of this unhappy strife. 

In John, thirteenth chapter, Jesus gave his early 
disciples some tests of continued discipleship. He 
said, " Little children, yet a little while I am with 
you. * * A new commandment I give unto 
you. That ye love one another ; as I have loved 
you, that ye also love one another." This law was 
the out-working of the deepest love in the universe. 
3 



34 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

This was more than the old commandment, "Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." There is a 
wide difference between a self-like love and a 
Christ-like love. In this consists the newness of 
the " new commandment " Jesus gave to his disci- 
ples. Jesus continued, "By this shall all men 
know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one 
to another." 

The inductions, whatever they were, had been 
submitted to, but these were the tests of continued 
discipleship and universal recognition, " By this 
shall aU men know" etc. The same Christ who 
commanded teaching and baptizing also commanded 
this love td one another. 

There are but two parties in this baptismal con- 
troversy. They should, for Christ's sake and for 
their own sake, immediately withdraw Christian 
recognition from each other ; for if these separated 
parties are Christians, it follows as a logical se- 
quence that the religion God has vouchsafed to the 
world through his own Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, 
is the weakest of all religions; that it possesses no 
one-making, unifying power. This is a most dam- 
aging representation of the Author and Founder of 
the Christian institution ; for it is not possible that 
" all men " can know these divided parties to be 
disciples of Christ by the love they have one for 
another. The " all men " in the text must come to 
one of two conclusions from the sect predicate, i. e., 
that these are not learners — followers — of Jesus, or 
they must accept them upon other evidence than 
the test submitted by Jesus Christ — " By this shall 
all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have 
love piie for another." John 13 : 35. The first 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. #0 

conclusion falls upon the present church, and the 
second fells upon her Christ. One of these conclu- 
sions will and must be drawn from the premises by 
all thoughtful men, for men cannot believe that love 
is in any case cause of separation. The exact op- 
posite is true to individual experience and universal 
observation. The present church either misrepre- 
sents herself or she misrepresents Jesus Christ. 
From the infidel tendencies of the times we infer 
that the misrepresentation falls with more crushing 
weight upon the '"Head" than upon the "body." 
It would be infinitely better for Christ and human- 
ity that the reproach should fall where it justly 
belongs ; for it would be better for the world that 
the Christ should be respected, if the church should 
be but lightly esteemed. 

All men know that the baptismal controversy, 
more than any other one cause, lies at the bottom 
of this great schism. The union movement has 
made this most manifest. In all conventional de- 
liberations this rock of offense, this apple of dis- 
oord, has been most prominent. In union prayer 
meetings, union revival meetings, in exchange of 
pulpits, the parties have agreed to say nothing 
•about this disturbing element. The mention of 
baptism would be the signal for strife and the intro- 
duction of party animosities. This morbid sensi- 
tiveness means something. It proves that the con- 
science is not well at ease in regard to what all hold 
to be a divine ordinance whose rudimental signifi- 
cance relates specifically to the conversion of sin- 
ners in some sense. This premeditated silence is 
an unholy compromise, but under present circum- 
stances it may be a prudential necessity. 



86 THE BAPTISMAL, CONTEOVEESY. 

The time was when argument on the subject of 
baptism had only a local and sectional importance. 
It has this still. But the union discussions have 
given to baptism a catholic, a church- wide impor- 
tance. By a directive providence the parties have 
been brought to stand on new ground, and to look 
at the subject from another angle of vision. From 
that broader view it means more than mere denom- 
inational agreement. If all the Pedo-Baptist de- 
nominations should form a union— -nay, a unity, 
and all the Baptist denominations should do the 
same, it would not meet the present ideal of Chris- 
tian union. This would not be the union plead for 
and prayed for. One-half of all who are acknowl- 
edged to be evangelical Christians would be left 
oYtt of the present contemplated union. Two such 
imions would give more importance and greater 
prominence to the baptismal controversy, and give 
more intensity to the strife. It would only give 
strength to the present divided forces to carry on 
the warfare with more rivalry and decision, without 
any better results, and the weakening and corrupt- 
ing influence of sectism would still go on. The 
divided parties who extend to each other evangel- 
ical honors are under the most sacred obligation to 
God, to the church, and to the world, that they put 
an end to the out-workings of these divisions, and 
lift the " bride, the Lamb's wife," out of her deep 
humiliation. Division is no longer plead for as a 
necessity and a means of spiritual quickening. It 
is preached against, it is prayed against, it is con- 
demned by all who love the Prince of Peace. 

Are all these deprecations feigned ? They can- 
not be. Are they as deep and earnest as they 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. i 37 

should be ? This is the question, above all others, 
to be considered. Whether the present motives 
are the real motives ; whether they can impart 
that earnestness to the plea that will insure success. 

Hitherto the plea for union has been mixed. It 
has partaken largely of the human and the selfish. 
Self-defense has been the predominating motive. 
The church, it has been urged., must be united to 
defend herself against Roman Catholicism and 
rationalistic infidelity. These may be entertained 
as secondary considerations ; but there is not Christ 
enough in them to give them real vitality. Then 
there is a voice from Italy, and other missionary 
fields : We want your money to aid us in our evan- 
gelizing labors ; but we do not want your sectarian 
machinery, your sectarian names, creeds, etc. The 
people here will accept the Christianity of the New 
Testament, but they will not accept your denomi- 
national modifications of it. This, too, should be 
and is entertained by the union advocates as a very 
suggestive rebuke, but it is only a remote consider- 
ation. 

To reach the real motive to union, the divided 
church must lose sight of herself, her power of 
aggression or defense. The true motive lies farther 
back, and down deeper, and immeasurably higher 
than all these. The plea must rest upon " the 
Author and Finisher of the faith." The divine Law- 
giver, who said, " Upon this rock I will build my 
church," must be vindicated, if the divisions and 
subdivisions are not the legitimate out- workings of 
his own church. If they are not in harmony with 
his own church law 7 s and ordinances, " the Christ, 
the Son of the living God," is not responsible ; if 



3$ THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY* 

they are, he needs no vindication, for then they were* 
inherent in the institution originated by himself 
The founder of an institution is entitled to the 
praise or blame of the good or bad results of his; 
institution. 1^ therefore, sects and parties are 
natural results, they are good;- if evil, the founder 
of the institution was either wanting in wisdom or 
goodness, and incompetent to originate an institu- 
tion which was capable of promoting the best and 
the highest interests of mankind, a peace on earth 
and good will among men.'* 

With the consent of all candid men, saints and 5 
sinners, we may say assumptively, that all the moral 
and religious tendencies of the- church are to unity ; 
that the legitimate tendencies of her faith, her 
hope, her love, all her sympathies,, all her mutuali- 
ties are to unite man to man and man to his God. 
An opposite conclusion would shock the most bitter 
partisan. 

Any attempt to prove that our divisions are emi- 
nently sinful and unholy, and a great reproach to 
him whom God has given "to be head over all 
things to the church, which is his body," would be 
a work of supererogation, and any attempt to prove 
that the church should remove this scandal from 
her glorified Head,, would be equally so. In this 
must be found the real motive to union, while 
every other must be subordinate. We must humbly 
and penitentially feel and confess the fact that we 
have " crucified the Son of God afresh," and have 
u put him to an open shame." We must vindicate hi& 
honor from the consequences of our own folly. 
Until the church shall regard this as a debt due to 
her dishonored Head^ all her pleadings for union* 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 39 

will be vain, and her prayers ineffectual. The 
human side of the church — her weakness and her 
strength, her inefficiency and efficiency — has been 
the predicate of all we have heard and read. The 
divine side, the dishonored, suffering Christ, is 
either wholly forgotten or but lightly passed over. 
Who that devoutly loves Jesus Christ, that looks 
with a religious admiration upon his personal and 
official perfections, would not rejoice to see him fully 
vindicated from all the consequences and divisions 
that have originated in this baptismal controversy ? 
Every Chrst-loving partisan in this strife would be 
willing to make any personal sacrifice to remove 
this odium from the name of the Lord and the gos- 
pel of his grace, if he saw the facts as they are. 



40 THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEKSY. 



CHAPTER II. 

We submit, then, that when we look at the sub- 
ject from a controversial standpoint^ taking both, 
sides into our view, Jesus Christ is more deeply 
involved than the church. This will be a novel 
view to many. It will, therefore, require some de- 
fense and illustration. 

First. This dividing question is an ordinance of 
his own appointment, therefore, his relations to the 
controversy and its consequences must be intimate.. 

Second. The baptism Christ has commanded,, 
be that what it may, is inductive; therefore, it in- 
volves the beginning of church life. 

Third. The law of induction should have been* 
set forth in terms so plain that every sinner eligible * 
to church membership could understand it For^ 
no man can be held responsible for the observance 
of any law or command that has to be explained ;: 
for that would be obedience to the expounder and 
not obedience to the lawgiver. If, therefore, Jesus 
Christ gave the law of baptism in terms so inde- 
finite that human explanation would be a necessity,, 
there would be no religious element in the act. 

Fburth. When Jesus gave baptism in charge to 
his apostles to " teach " it to the " nations," to 
" preach " it to every " creature," he gave no ex- 
planation. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY* 41 

Fifth. The apostles preached it to Jews and to 
Gentiles, to men of all languages and every degree 
of intelligence, without one word of explanation. 

From these self-evident statements it would seem 
that in the divine judgment the law was sufficiently 
clear to command the obedience of all responsible 
subjects. If it was not, the Lawgiver made a mis- 
take, and the command is null and void, and all 
men, on the principle of righteous legislation, are 
absolved from the obligation ; for, in that case, 
there is no duty expressed. 

If there ever was, if there is now, any reason 
for this baptismal controversy, it must be found in 
a mistake or a design on the part of the Christian's 
Lawgiver. One of these conclusions is the logical 
suggestion of the baptismal controversy, as will b^ 
proved more fully hereafter. 



42 THE BAPTISMAL €ONTROVERSY« 



CHAPTER III. 

When did the baptismal controversy begin ? 
Merle D'Aubigne, in his History of the Reformation, 
has divided the church into three historic periods. 
The primitive, the ancient, and the modern. The 
controversy on infant baptism began, in the early 
part of the ancient period, in the time of the Fathers. 
In that period clinic baptism began which led to 
some debate, whether copious affusions of sick, bed- 
ridden persons should be accepted as baptism, as in 
the case of Novatian. But the controversy about 
the mode (action) of baptism began after the Roman 
Catholics, by the authority of a council in 1311, 
made immersion, pouring, or sprinkling a matter of 
indifference. The controversy about the design of 
baptism began at a later period. 

It is a significant fact that there was no contro- 
versy about baptism in the primitive, the apostolic 
period. There were many controversies and here- 
sies on other subjects during this period. There 
was a controversy between the Jewish and Gentile 
converts about the perpetuity of circumcision and 
the law of Moses, about the eqnal rights of the 
Gentiles with the Jews in the blessings of the gos- 
pel, about the resurrection of the dead, the coming 
of Christ, etc. There was the Gnostic and Mcolai- 
tan heresies, the doctrine of Balaam and Jezebel, 
but no controversy about baptism. 

That was the very time it might have been look- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 43 

ed for. Baptism was preached and administered to 
all the Jewish sectaries. The Jews were a contro- 
versial people. Under their former religion, par- 
ents and infants were in the same covenant. They 
had washings, sprinklings, and bathings. It is 
strange that they did not find some analogy between 
baptism and circumcision, their ablutions and bap- 
tism, sufficient to start a controversy. Then the 
gospel was preached to them in every language. 
The word chosen in any or all of these different 
tongues and dialects must have expressed the same 
form of baptism ; if not there would have been a 
diversity in the administration. This would have 
been cause of controversy, then as now. But there 
is not a hint that there was any misunderstanding 
or debate among the Jewish Christians about bap- 
tism in New Testament times. This fact has never 
been accounted for. Its importance demands that 
it should be. The difficulties in settling a unanimity 
of belief and practice in this thing were great, and 
the fact that there was a oneness of faith and prac- 
tice among all Christians in apostolic times can be 
accounted for only on the ground of a divine precau- 
tion. The baptism in the apostolic commission, 
embracing both Jews and Gentiles, was something 
new to both, and required definiteness in statement. 
Both Jews and Gentiles understood the meaning of 
"believe" and "repent" for these conditions of mind 
are as old as humanity, but baptism was a novelty, 
and therefore required a premeditated caution to 
select from every language in which the gospel was 
preached that word which would express the same 
action or mode in every other language, to secure 
uniformity in the formality of induction. Nothing 



44 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

short of this could have brought about unanimity 
and have maintained it. That there should be 
words expressive of different uses and application of 
water is a necessity of language. To choose the 
word expressive of a specific mode or action in the 
use of water implies a knowledge of the language. 
Now we come to a fearful emergency — an emer- 
gency which all human wisdom and learning could 
not meet ; namely, to establish in the beginning of 
the gospel a uniform practice in the administration 
of baptism. There is only one fact that will ex- 
plain that other fact, i. e., that there was no baptis- 
mal controversy in the primitive period of the 
church, " And they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as 
the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2 : 4. This 
explains what would be inexplicable on human 
principles. Now we have to do with the Spirit 
which gave the utterance. The Spirit of all wis- 
dom and understanding gave the utterance. " Ut- 
terance, the act of uttering words." The infinite 
Spirit could select from all the different languages 
of Pentecost that word in that language which 
would express a specific use of water. If he did 
not, it was because he would not ; and here we 
would find all the seeds and germs of our baptis- 
mal controversy as respects mode. To illustrate ; 
Suppose when the Spirit, through the human organs 
of his own choosing, had, when speaking to the 
Grecian Jews, used a word that meant sprinkle, 
and when speaking to the Jews from Rome had 
used the word which in that language meant dip, 
and to other Jewish strangers a word that meant 
pour, how would that have effected the results of 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 45 

Pentecost ? Just as the different modes now advo- 
cated effect some of the great revival meetings 
when the time for baptizing the converts has come. 
In some cases the converts have been baptized in 
three different ways, every one as he has been 
taught to believe what baptism is. So it would 
have been on Pentecost. The Grecian Jews who 
were commanded in their " own language in which 
they were born " to be sprinkled, would not and 
could not have consented to be immersed, for that 
would not have been baptism to them ; and so of 
all the three thousand. On this supposition the 
Holy Spirit (not the apostles) w r ould have sowed 
the seeds of strife and self-destruction at the begin- 
ning. 

We do not say what the style of the Spirit's 
Pentecostal address to the strangers at Jerusalem 
was, but we confidently affirm it was uniform — the 
same to all that mixed multitude " from every na- 
tion under heaven." The one fact, if there was 
no other, that there was no controversy about bap- 
tism during the primitive period of the church, 
leads to no other conclusion. Here the inspired 
history of the 2sew Testament " lifts up her rule 
and shuts the door upon us." 

So perfectly were the apostolic churches united 
on the subject of baptism, that Paul, when giving 
the several items in the bond of union, could say, 
"one baptism." This he could not have said if 
baptism had been a contested question. 

The utterances of the Holy Spirit on the day of 
Pentecost furnished the type of baptism, struck off 
the imprinted sheet, and sent it to every nation 
under heaven by the hands of converted Jews. 



46 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 



CHAPTER IV. 

If the utterances of the Holy Spirit on the day 
of Pentecost gave the type of baptism and sent 
that stereotyped form of it to " every nation under 
heaven/' it is important that we should know what 
that form is. In this statement the reader will 
perceive that we refer him directly to the words 
spoken by the Holy Spirit on that occasion. We 
are fully warranted in this by the text before cited, 
" And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and 
began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit 
gave them utterance." 

The apostles were under an extraordinary in- 
spiration at that time, if in strict propriety it can 
be called an inspiration. The apostles were not 
"moved ' to speak, but they were used for speech. 
The operation of the Spirit was upon their vocal 
organs. The Holy Spirit used human organs to 
speak to human ears. " They began to speak as 
the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. " They 
neither selected their words nor yet the verbal 
clothing of words in languages of which they were 
ignorant — they were but instruments subject to the 
will of another. What the apostles spoke was 
given to them both in sound and in sense. It is 
the organist, not the instrument, that selects both 
the key and the notes. " They began to speak as 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 47 

the Spirit gave them utterance." There was a 
necessity for this in order that all, every " man in 
his own language in which he was born," should 
have, the same facts in regard to the risen, ascended, 
and glorified Christ, that their faith, their repent- 
ance, their baptism should result in a unity ; that 
the Jews of Judea, Greece, Rome, Egypt, Asia, 
converted on Pentecost, or Jews and Gentiles con- 
verted afterwards, might be one. 

We do not say what this baptism was in its mode, 
subjects, or design ; we only affirm there was uni- 
formity — a perfect sameness. If sprinkling was 
the mode, if infants and believers were the sub- 
jects, if remission of sins was its design, in the 
sense of " because of," or in the sense of " in order 
to," we say, grant it. We only say, what it was to 
one it was to all who heard the apostles " as the 
Holy Ghost gave them utterance." And we fur- 
ther say, what it was then it is now, and nothing 
else is baptism, however honest the mistake may 
be. 

If there had been indefiniteness or omission in 
statement, this would have led to misunderstanding 
and disunion, just as now. This would have re- 
quired another, a supplemental gospel — which 
would have been another gospel. And that 
would have required the same, or greater, demon- 
strations of the Holy Spirit than the first. We 
are then shut up to this conclusion, i. e. y that every 
thing essential to baptism, in its mode, subjects, 
and significance, was definitely stated on the day 
of Pentecost, as reported in the second chapter of 
Acts. And the fact before stated, that there was 
no controversy on the subject in the primitive 



48 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

period of the church, is at least presumptive evi- 
dence of the correctness of these conclusions. 

But these conclusions will receive great confirm- 
ation from other considerations, namely : that Pen- 
tecost was the occasion of the grandest results ever 
witnessed, the culmination of divine purposes long 
before indicated, both in promise and in prophecy, 
all of w*hich were distinctly marked with the 
thought of universality. As in the promise to 
Abraham, " And in thee shall all families of the 
earth be blessed." Genesis 12 : 3. "Thou art my 
Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me 
and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inherit- 
ance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy 
possession." Ps. 2: 7, 8. u Fear not: for, behold 
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall 
be unto all people. For unto you is born," etc. 
Luke 2 : 10. " These words spake Jesus, and lifted 
up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is 
come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify 
thee : as ^hou hast given him power over all 
flesh." John 17 : 1, 2. " The hour is come ;" that 
whioh was distant has come, is at hand. So the 
purpose of God in regard to universal blessing 
stood before the resurrection of Christ from the 
dead. But, as in the ripening process, the last ten 
days are more than all the stages of germination 
and growth, the changes of every day are visible, 
the incidents crowded together in the fifty days 
between the last Passover and the last Pentecost 
are marvelous. But in this rapid development the 
one great thought, universality, is prominent. It is 
kept in view in all that is said and done. The 
risen Christ said to the eleven, M All power is given 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 49 

unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, 
and teach all nations, baptizing them," etc. " All 
families," " all people," " all flesh;" but now to " all 
nations " are added two new thoughts, " teaching," 
and something the apostles were to do, some action 
they were to perform, expressed by the word baptiz- 
ing. Whatever that action was,, we may assume it 
was the same in every case. Whether the word bap- 
tizing was generic or specific, the action must have 
been the same from its relation to all nations and 
to keep intact that great ultimatum, universality ; 
for a diversity of administration would have been 
fatal to national religious oneness. The same is 
repeated in Mark, " Go ye into all the world and 
preach the gospel to every creature. He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved." No lan- 
guage could express universality and sameness more 
strongly than this. 

It is a significant fact that Jesus Christ in ad- 
vance associated baptism with that great foreordina- 
tion, t. e. } to give the world a universal religion. 
And that men of every nation under heaven should 
have been present and addressed in their own lan- 
guage in which they were born, brings out a series 
of incidents and coincidents which can only be 
accounted for on the ground that it was the work of 
him who " worketh all things after the counsel of 
his own will." There was something decorous and 
unspeakably sublime in this, that a religion designed 
for all nations, in which all nations should stand upon 
equality, should, on the occasion of its first public 
announcement, have been addressed to representa- 
tives from all nations. True, those addressed were 
all Jews and proselytes, but by birtk, education, lan- 
4 



50 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

guage, and citizenship, they belonged to other 
nationalities. And the rights of the Gentiles, the 
i( far off/' to be equal partakers was a subject of 
special mention. As respects this great world's 
convention, on the occasion of the world's highest 
interest, one nation could have no precedence over 
another on the ground of national recognition. 
There was, therefore, no room for national jealous- 
ies. There was no ground for national preferences 
or favoritism — no easier or harder way of salvation 
- — repentance required of some and no repentance 
required of others. Not an easier baptism for some 
and a harder baptism for others. Not remission of 
sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit promised to 
some and denied to others. That universality and 
equality which pervaded all the promises and proph- 
ecies, and the more approximate commands and 
promises of Jesus Christ, stand out in glorious 
fulness on Pentecost. It w r as, therefore, the con- 
summation of the out-reaching and all-embracing 
benevolence of God, as respects the gospel of his 
grace, for the salvation of sinners- — the salvation of 
a distracted, divided, sin- afflicted world. 

We must look at that Pentecost, not simply as a 
day — a great Jewish anniversary — but as an occa- 
sion, a chosen occasion, for the accomplishment of 
great and long predestinated purposes, and a long 
series of pre-arranged incidents and events, ready 
for visible and oral display at that hour. It was 
an occasion never to be repeated. What was said 
and done then was said and done forever, never to 
be improved and never to be changed ; as unchange- 
able as God himself is immutable. Therefore, with 
these facts in mind, w T e said before, what baptism 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 51 

Was then in its mode/ subjects, and meaning, it is 
now, and nothing else is baptism. What God might 
do with his own institution, w r e know not. He 
could, if his infinite wisdom saw fit, abolish one and 
ordain another, as he once took away an old law 
and gave a new law, abolished an old covenant and 
established a new covenant. When God changed 
the Aaronic priesthood, it lost its identity, it became 
extinct ; but the word " change," in the baptismal 
controversy is used in the sense of substitution 
— substituting one thing for another — but preserv- 
ing the original in the substitute. In this sense 
John Calvin used the word " change." " The 
church has from the beginning taken upon herself 
to change the rites and ordinances somewhat * * 
without affecting the substance." The " begin- 
ning," does not go back to the apostolic age, but 
to the times of the Fathers. The statement is, there- 
fore, only an endorsement of human arrogance, a 
fallacy with which the controversy has always been 
and is yet greatly encumbered. 

Any changes in regard to the facte, commands, 
and promises announced by the Holy Spirit, speak- 
ing in human voice and in human language in the 
hearing of men " from every nation under heaven," 
Would be an act of nullification, if the changes 
were made by divine authority, and fatal to that 
preordained universality, equality, and national one- 
taess contemplated in the first incipial promise, and 
through all the stages of the opening and progres- 
sive developments until the time of consummation 
on Pentecost. And, " speaking after the manner of 
men," without divine supplemental correction and 
explanation, the whole scheme of salvation by 



52 tb:e baptismal, controversy. 

Jesus Christ would have been but a splendid fail-* 
ure. Therefore, we say again, what • baptism was 
then it is now. It has an identity : It is itself—- 
its own self, and not another. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTBOVERSY. 53 



CHAPTER V. 

All parties agree that " Baptism is an ordinance 
of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ," 
On this agreement the parties have based the issue. 
This ordinance, ordained by Jesus^ has a positive, 
definite, New Testament history, or it has not,. 
Here is where the divergency begins, on the defi- 
niteness of the history, and here is where the parties 
must be brought face to face, that we may look at 
them and that they may look at one another. 

The issue is not whether baptism is a divine ordi- 
nance ; whether the ordinance should be perpetu- 
ated ; nor yet whether the duty to be baptized is 
obligatory on all. On these points all agree. But 
affirmatively, Is the New Testament history so de- 
finite as to allow no latitude in belief and practice ? 
The party that claims the precedence in numbers, 
learning, etc., asserts, where definiteness in history 
ends, there inference and veritable tradition begin. 
Another party affirms an unqualified definiteness in 
the history, and deny the legitimacy of inference 
and tradition. 

So the issue stands, in the old party lines, on 
mode and subjects. Pedo-Baptists assert that the 
imperative word, the word in which was enclosed 
the action of baptism, is an equivocal word, having 
&t least three meanings, sprinkle, pour, and dip. 
Baptists assert that Jesus Christ selected a univocaJ 



54 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

word, a word which has but one meaning. The 
parties in the baptismal controversy are Pedo-Bap- 
tists, Baptists, and Jesus Christ. But the latter, by 
implication, is more deeply involved in the contro- 
versy and its consequences than the former ; for if 
Jesus Christ used a word having three meanings, 
each meaning being equally applicable to the ordi- 
nance, then the controversy on the mode should be 
immediately withdrawn, and the right of choice 
should be left to the candidate and administrator, 
without debate. In that case JesBS Christ premed- 
itated diversity, and appointed the means to the 
end. If he knew that the word baptize (baptizo} 
had these three meanings, then he gave his prefer- 
ence tojjthat word because it had these meanings, 
and would be so understood by those to whom he 
said, " teach the nations, baptizing them." The 
choice of the word was either a design or a mistake. 
Unitarians and infidels might assume the latter. 
And this is about the way the world looks at this 
strife. 

If the Pedo-Baptist's premises are sound, his con- 
clusions are so, and that liberty and diversity should 
be granted as expressed, by the highest functionary 
of our State, before a ministerial convention. "All 
we ask," said he, " on the subject of baptism, is 
water and the name of the Trinity." That was well 
and happily said, if that was all that Jesus meant 
by u baptizing " — " water and the name of the 
Trinity." If this abbreviation of Pedo-Baptist bap- 
tism fills up the New Testament records on the 
mode, then there is no cause for controversy, and 
immersionists alone are responsible for this Christ- 
dishonoring strife, and they should repent. Fox if 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 55 

Jesus Christ provided for diversity, a liberty of 
choice in the administration of the ordinance, and 
Baptists deny that right of choice in the adminis- 
tration, then they are clearly wrong and are fight- 
ing against Christ. The issue is on the definiteness 
of the command. The parties agree that Jesus 
meant water when he said to his apostles, " baptizing 
them/' but disagree as to the use, or the application 
of water. Pedo- Baptists assert that Jesus meant 
that water might be sprinkled upon the person, or 
that water might be poured upon the person, or 
that the person might be immersed in water. But 
Baptists assert the latter only. The controversy 
stands then as one to three. This warfare has been 
carried on for many long centuries, and continues 
with as much earnestness as heretofore. 

Now, let the belligerents pause a little while, and 
reflect on how this may affect the absent, the silent 
party, the originator of this strife. For if he had 
not commanded his chosen ministry to "teach the 
nations, baptizing them," there would have been no 
such controversy. There is, then, a sense in which 
he is deeply involved. He is an interested party. 
Between the parties the absent one is subjected to 
the most cruel torture, whether the parties are 
equally culpable or not. 

Oh, think of it, ye friends of Jesus, that a word 
which fell from his own warm, living voice, the 
utterance of his own divine, loving heart, should 
have been the occasion of all this bitter strife 
— breaking up Christian sympathies and affections, 
brotherly co-operation and fellowship — dividing 
husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers 
and sisters, so that those of a man's own household 



56 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

cannot worship together. Such results from insti- 
tutions merely human would be regarded as a great 
misfortune to human society, and would be charged 
upon the author or authors of the institution, or 
the unfaithfulness and treachery of those who had 
adopted the institution as a rule of conduct. 

So in this case the ordinance of baptism was 
unwise legislation, or there has been a fearful 
" wresting of the Scriptures," and perversion of 
the ordinance. I pray you, then, in all this turmoil 
and strife, do not forget Jesus. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEESY. 57 



CHAPTER VI. 

• 

It is but the part of candor to admit that immer- 
sionists have been and yet are the aggressors. But 
for them there would be no controversy now on the 
mode of baptism. Just as Protestantism left Ro- 
manism^ so the* case would stand to-day. Both for 
aggression and defense, they affirm that baptize is 
an untranslated word. This fact has to be admit- 
ted. And when the Scripture argument is Hot 
accepted as conclusive that the word baptize means 
immersion only, they appeal to lexicons and the 
classics as the only standard authorities to deter- 
mine the meaning of the word in dispute. But 
their opponents appeal to the same authorities in 
defense, that the word baptize has a generic mean- 
ing, and, therefore, the mode of baptism is unde- 
termined, and, hence, the often repeated affirmation 
that the mode of baptism is not essential to the 
ordinance. This is a logical conclusion from the 
predicate; for if the lexicons and the classics do not 
decide the meaning of the word, then the parties 
are balanced so far as this source of evidence is 
concerned. It is not our province to express even 
an opinion as to the preponderance of the evidence, 
whether it is more or less favorable to one party or 
the other. We only say that the argument drawn 
from the Greek standards has not as yet been 
decisive. 



58 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

If these " trumpets give a certain sound" the in- 
tegrity of one party or the other must be implica- 
ted. But this censure would fall only upon the 
educated, the masters of language. The arguments 
deduced from Greek lexicons and classics are schol- 
arly, and can be understood and appreciated by the 
educated few only. And if the masses must depend 
upon the learned, and the learned must depend upon 
the literature of a dead language, a language which 
the demagogues of the parties can turn to their 
account in their own way, as they have done hither- 
to, what then ? If those of common intelligence 
who can read the Word of the Lord for themselves 
in such translations as they may have, cannot with 
certainty decide the meaning of the word baptize, 
are they not by a permissive providence absolved 
from the command of Jesus Christ ? Let me ask 
our heaven-commissioned guides, who will be 
responsible ? By your controversy you have long 
held the popular mind in doubt and suspense, and 
the most thoughtful of this class feel but little per- 
sonal obligation to obey the command of Christ — 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," 
in any way, and this indifference is becoming more 
and more manifest. 

I believe it is a common sentiment — an intuitive 
conviction that in all our acts of religious devotion 
our faith must stand in the truth of God, and not 
in the wisdom of men. But if in this baptismal 
strife we are tied up to the wisdom of the wise, and 
these cannot or will not agree on the meaning of 
an imperative chosen word, then we must forbear 
to act, or act upon the conflicting teachings of those 
who profess to be wise in the ways of the Lord. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 59 

This would be to give up the subjection of the con- 
science to men, and not to Jesus Christ. 

In the ordinary discussions, both oral and printed, 
in the pulpits, in our religious papers, in formal 
debates, books, printed sermons, tracts, etc., etc , 
lexicons and the classics have furnished material for 
controversy. If this mode of warfare was seen to 
be unprofitable to either party, it would have been 
abandoned long before now. Almost every weekly 
sheet brings the information that one debate has 
closed and another is agreed upon. These facts 
prove that the fdebates are not decisive and that 
they are supposed to be equally profitable on both 
sides. 

Judging the future by the past, how much longer 
shall Jesus Christ be laid upon this altar of strife ? 
How much longer shall his word be the chosen 
subject of controversial wresting to build up some 
favorite theory ? This may not be equally true of 
both parties, but it must be true of one, for opposites 
cannot both be right. In this case the truth must 
be on one side or the other, it cannot lie midway 
between opposing extremes. For when Jesus 
Christ instituted baptism, he either meant sprinkle, 
pour, immerse, or he meant immerse only, Greeks 
and Greeklings to the contrary notwithstanding. 

We by no means disparage the use of the Greek 
or any other language in Biblical criticism. We 
only say that in ordinary controversy before the 
uneducated masses, the appeal to ancient Greek is 
not decisive, but usually darkens counsel by a 
multitude of words of no meaning to them. The 
proper place for the lexicons and the classics is the 
preacher's studio, and not his pulpit; the transla- 



60 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

tor's office and not the hurried and excited disputant, 
where all the arts of sophistry and evasion may be 
resorted to to make that which is plain and certain, 
dark and doubtful. The testimony of translators 
is worth more as respects the original meaning of 
the word baptize than all the debates that ever 
have been and ever will be. Their testimony can 
be understood by all, and should be decisive to all. 
The simple fact that in our King James, the word 
baptizo (baptize) was not translated, makes its mean- 
ing just as obvious as though it had been translated, 
when it is remembered that both the King, his 
church, and his board of translators were Episcopal- 
ians, The parties are at least entitled to a moiety 
of respect that they did not translate the word 
baptizo by the word pour. Their not translating 
the word at all only proves what they would have 
have done if lexicons and classics and the New 
Testament history of the ordinance had not stood 
in their way. 

For a long time there has been a strong tempta- 
tion before translators to translate the original text 
by the word sprinkle. But not one has been will- 
ing to risk his scholarship or his piety. Whensoever 
and by whomsoever the original has been translated, 
it has been by the word immerse, or its equivalent. 
In this, self interest has been compelled to yield to 
worthier motives. All translators worthy ot 
respect understand the Hebrew of the Old Testa- 
ment and the Greek of the New Testament in their 
bearings upon this controversy. How very decisive 
is their testimony when they have either not trans- 
lated at all or have given a clear verdict in favor 
of the least influential party. 



TKE BAPTISMAL COtfTBOYERSY, 61 

On all questions of disagreement in things secu- 
lar such a verdict would be thought conclusive and 
an end of all strife. Why it is not so in in this 
will have to be left to him who understands the 
secret motives of all hearts. 

But is it true that the transfer of a Greek word 
into our common English text is the cause of this 
controversy on the mode of baptism ? Why are 
the Germans who read Luther's translated text 
divided on the mode as we are, who read King 
James's untranslated text ? We are fully warranted 
in view of all the facts and the definiteness of the 
New Testament records, to say that this is only a 
pretext, a hiding place, and that no translation could 
heal the breach, for the controversy began before 
there was any translation into German or English. 
The transfer of the word baptizo into the common 
English text is therefore not the real cause of the 
strife. 

But why are the subjects and the designs of bap- 
tism as much contested points as the mode? Is this 
because of unfaithfulness on the part of transla- 
tors ? "He that beiieveth and is baptized shall be 
saved," " Repent and be baptized every one of 
you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission 
of sins," is literal and unfigurative English, and 
have special reference to subject and design. Why 
then should there be a divided faith on these two 
phases of the ordinance ? Again we say if there 
is any cause for disunion, it will have to be sought 
for and will have to be found in the ordinance 
kself, and that will have to fall back upon Jesus 
Christ, and he only is responsible. In that case, let 
the strife continue, or let the parties reconcile the 



62 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

trouble as they please, " For a brother or a sister is 
not bound in such a case." 

There is yet another source of evidence on which 
immersionists rely with some assurance, i. e., the 
concessions of anti-immersionists in favor of im- 
mersion. They refer to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, 
Stuart, etc., as conceding that the word baptize 
means to immerse, and that there can be no doubt 
as to the primitive mode. But what the admissions 
of these good and great men are worth will admit at 
least of a doubt. If there is some gain on the one 
hand,there is some loss on the other hand. If their 
concessions are favorable to immersion, they are 
correspondingly disparaging to the ordinance ; for 
what are 'the formalties of the ordinance worth if 
the ordinance does not command the subjection of 
the conscience to Jesus Christ ? The few named 
and many others, who have made the same admis- 
sion, continued to preach and to practice sprinkling. 
They neither corrected their own mistake, nor yet 
the mistake of others who looked to them as their 
spiritual advisers. They made the concessions as 
scholars, but ministerially and practically they con- 
tradicted what they admitted to be true philologi- 
cally. If as reformers, theologians, and men of 
learning, they did something on the one side, they 
did more upon the other side, for it is the preacher's 
pulpit and his practice that gives expression to his 
belief, rather than his books. Moreover, not one of 
these concessionists has maintained even a decent 
consistency in all they have written upon the sub- 
ject, of which we will give one example. 

Moses Stuart says : " I cheerfully admit that 
baptize, in the New Testament, when applied to the 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 63 

rite of baptism, does, in all probability, involve the 
idea that this rite was usually performed by immer- 
sion, but not always." (p. 154.) "In all probabil- 
ity." Then it admits of a doubt whether baptism 
was performed by immersion. The strongest assur- 
ance the subject can have is opinion. His bap- 
tism, therefore, cannot be an act of faith. What 
is this equivocal admission worth? The last mem- 
ber of the paragraph is sufficiently definite. He 
says, " but not always." Immersion in New Test- 
ament times is probable, " but not always." We 
regret that the learned professor did not give one 
case to sustain his negation, u but not always." In 
about this way all that class of theologians have 
handled the subject. To analyze them, we would 
have to say they had two consciences, a literary and 
a religious conscience, and these, like the flesh and 
the Spirit, were contrary the one to the other, so 
that they " could not do the things that they 
would." 

The great Teacher said, " Whosoever, therefore, 
shall break one of these least commandments, and 
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in 
the kingdom of heaven ; but whosoever shall do 
and teach them, the same shall be called great in 
the kingdom of heaven." 

Perhaps in no way can the popular conscience be 
more effectually debauched on the duty of baptism 
than for those in high position to " admit " one 
thing and preach and practice another. 

But there is another class of learned men whose 
scholarship is, to say the least, equal to those before 
named, such as the immortal Juclson, Stone, the 
Campbells, Scott, Richardson, and a host of others 



64 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

who were once disinterested witnesses. All these, 
when they discovered that to be baptized was to be 
immersed, corrected first their own mistake. They 
first did and then taught. They sacrificed the 
highest denominational positions and emoluments. 
They practiced what they preached, and preached 
what they practiced ; and what the formalities of 
baptism gained on the one hand its importance was 
held fast upon the other hand. We usually think 
candor is an important qualification in a witness, 
for there is such a thing as " doing truth " as well 
as " speaking truth. " 

The testimony of some of the learned on the 
mode of baptism would give ample scope for law- 
yers to fight over, while it would have but little 
influence over an impartial jury. 

From the preceding facts, the mind is irresisti- 
bly led to the conviction that there has been a great 
want of godly sincerity in this baptismal contro- 
versy. 

First. Some translators have not translated the 
word baptizo, but have left off the English " o $% 
and have added the English " e." 

Second. Some eminent Pedo-Baptist linguists 
affirm that the word baptize has three meanings ; 
others say it has but one meaning, and that is im- 
merse. But having discharged this debt due to a 
mere question of language, they quickly make some 
compensation to their denominational practice by 
saying that the ordinance is not essential, or that 
the mode is not essential to the ordinance. 

Third. This disagreement in the same party 
side, among the same party leaders and lights, sug- 
gests that there must be a want of religious integ- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 65 

rity somewhere, for what men understand they 
understand alike. If then these professedly learned 
ones do not understand the meaning of a word on 
which so much research has been bestowed, on 
which the greatest issue of the Christian world is 
based, they are not trustworthy guides; and if others 
will raise the question of not essential, a question 
not consistent with humble faith in regard to that 
which Jesus Christ has commanded, to subserve 
some party interest, they are not entitled to our 
confidence in the settlement of a grave issue. 

Fourth. There is no disagreement among the 
learned on the other side of the house ; they all 
agree on the meaning of the word baptize ; they all 
say the same thing ; they all practice the same 
thing ; they have no occasion to say the mode is 
not essential to the ordinance ; they practice what 
all admit to be both right and true. Now let the 
reader turn away from the party bearings of this 
issue and look at the bearings it has upon the 
Author of the institution. Let him press the ques- 
tion upon his own heart, Is Jesus Christ equally 
honored or dishooored by the parties. 
5 



66 ME BABTISMAB CONTROVEEST; , 



CHAPTER YII. 

The a Baptismal controversy, like air other contro- 
versies^ does not terminate upon itself. They draw 
consequences after, as legitimate outgrowths. Some 
of these have been briefly stated in the preceding 
pages* but the most important remain yet to be stat- 
ed. They may be stated thus, restricted membership 
and ^restricted communion. 1st. All that claim to be 
Christians and are admitted to be Christians, are not 
eligiBlfe to particular membership in all Christian 
churches, using the word church in an unscriptural, 
a denominational, sense. 2d. All to whom Chris- 
tian recognition is extended are not admitted to the 
communion table in all Christian churches. Para- 
doxical as this may appear, it is nevertheless true. 

This, at first view, looks like the extreme of sec- 
tarianism. If this was in the form of an accusation 
it would have to rest upon immersionists, for they 
only,, with a mere fractional exception, practice 
restricted membership and restricted communion. 
That these out growths may be understood will i 
require some definite formal statement. 

First. All immersionists are one as respects re- 
stricted membership, but differ in regard to restrict- 
ed communion. The Free Baptists and the Chris- 
tian denomination, sometimes called Bible Chris- 
tians, (no reproach), hold a restricted membership, 
but practice unrestricted communion. They extend, 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 67 

invitation to the members of Pedo-Baptist churches. 
The Christian Church, (Disciples), like the others, 
will not receive into membership the unimmersed, 
but neither invite nor forbid participation in the 
commemorative supper. The words of Christ, 
" Drink ye all of it," they understand to be com- 
mand, not invitation. The right to invite would 
imply the right to forbid. The custom of invita- 
tion has (say they) grown out of, and is a conces- 
sion to sectarianism ; therefore, all professors may 
partake upon their own responsibility. This is 
their general practice, but there may be some ex- 
ceptions. Having assumed an unsectarian position, 
this is the best they can do, but it is by no means 
satisfactory to themselves. 

Then there are the Regular Baptists. These 
practice both restricted membership and restricted 
communion. They exclude all not of their " own 
faith and order." These aim to give a more decided 
testimony against a constructive baptism and in 
favor of what they believe to be positive baptism ; 
therefore, they cannot invite the baptized of other 
churches, which allow promiscuous communion, as 
that would be a concession in favor of a baptism 
not commanded by Jesus Christ. 

Second. All immersionists make a discrimina- 
tion between Christian fellowship and church fel- 
lowship. This looks like making a distinction 
where there is no difference. There are two motives 
underlying this apparent contradiction. 1st. Ex- 
tended charity. And, 2d. Self-defense. Under the 
first they can worship and co-operate with Pedo- 
Baptists. And under the second, they can defend 
themselves against what they believe to be an inno- 



68 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

vation, a departure from the example and com- 
mand of Christ, the apostles' teachings, and the 
practice of the primitive church. They reason 
thus. They say, " we cannot and should not clas- 
sify Pedo-Baptists with the world on the one hand, 
and on the other hand we can not in good faith 
extend to them all the rights and honors of citizen- 
ship in the % kingdom of God and of Christ/ inas- 
much as we are compelled to call into question the 
validity of their induction. For that which was 
wrong in the beginning cannot be made right by 
reason of time, nor yet by a pious after-life." 

To acknowledge Pedo-Baptists to be Christians 
in word, and to deny this in practice is inconsist- 
ent in fact and in logic ; and to make a distinction 
between Christian fellowship and church fellowship 
is equally indefensible in sound sense. Immersion- 
ists feel it to be so ; but with all the premises be- 
fore them, in the absence of divine direction, it is 
the best they can do, for they well know that if 
pedo-baptisni had universally prevailed the church 
would have been as wide as the world and quite 
much like it. Immersionists regard it as a most 
sacred obligation to Jesus Christ, that they defend 
and maintain that baptism which rests upon his 
own personal authority, and but for the uncompro- 
mising Baptists, both the world and the church 
would have been robbed of this Christ-given ordi- 
nance, for the distinction in subject and mode be- 
tween the divine and the human, would have been 
broken down long before now. When, therefore, 
Baptists extend equal recognition to their Pedo- 
Baptist brethren, they do it with some mental reser- 
vation, and, we presume, they are so understood. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 69 

This question of exclusiveness is encumbered 
with difficulties on every hand. The wisest and 
the best men of the church do not see their way 
clearly, and apparent inconsistencies must be incur- 
red to meet the demands of a scrupulous conscience. 

The baptismal controversy has brought the 
church into sad entanglements. Her illumination 
must be at fault, or she has not been true to her 
enlightenment. The facts all look in this direction. 
But all who love the Lord more than sectism will 
say we have sinned. 

How must this exclusiveness, known and read of 
all men, affect him " who walketh in the midst of 
the seven golden candlesticks ; who said " I know 
thy works f and what is the present effect upon the 
Christ's sinner-savins; mission ? and what will be 
the ultimate effect upon those who have been in- 
strumental in bringing about these untoward cir- 
cumstances ? These are grave questions and they 
will have to be met, for it is written, " And the 
Lord shall judge his people." 

There was no controversy about membership and 
the communion during the primitive period. Like 
the controversy about baptism, it began after the 
apostolic period had passed away. The controversy 
about the communion began with infant immersion 
in the second period when the memorials were 
administered — (fed) to; baptized babes. With this 
began the doctrine of sacramental grace, which is 
still the assumptive basis of infant baptism and 
must needs be in the absence of any moral qualifi- 
cations. But infant baptism was not introduced 
without resistance, and their right to the Lord's 
supper was long and warmly contested, but finally 



70 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the opposition prevailed, and they retained their 
baptism and church membership. The innocent 
babes were the first, and are still proscribed in their 
membership rights ; therefore, Pedo -Baptists ought 
not to accuse Baptists with the sin of restricted 
communion, when they do the same thing with 
those within their own enclosures. 

In the apostolic churches there were no disagree- 
ments about baptism, church membership, or mem- 
bership rights. All these controversies began in 
after times. These are significant facts, and place 
the brand of divine reprobation upon these strifes, 
or the causes that have produced them. If they 
had been brought into existence in the times of 
divine inspiration, they would have been settled as 
other disturbing elements were, by apostolic author- 
ity. But now there is no infallible umpire. The 
New Testament record, and that only so far as the 
absolute supremacy of Jesus Christ shall be admit- 
ted by the parties, can be decisive. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 71 



CHAPTER VIII. 

" Is Christ divided ? " Paul put this question to 
the church at Corinth. At this time the church 
was divided on account of certain personal prefer- 
ences ; and on account of Christ's relations £to the 
parties, he had to share the reproach of their divis- 
ions with them. This is the obvious sense of the 
question, " Is Christ divided ? " This question is 
as pertinent now as then, for in all religious divis- 
ions, from that day until now, each party assumes 
that Christ is with it — on their side. If they 
Relieved that Christ was against them, they would 
give up the contest. Those who said, " I am of 
Paul," no doubt supposed that Christ had the same 
partialities for Paul that they had for their favorite 
apostle. 

The following questions, " Was Paul crucified 
for you? or were ye baptized in the name of 
Paul?" confirm this view. 

This very appositely illustrates the parties of 
which we speak. Each party claims that Christ is 
on their side in the baptismal contest. If either par- 
ty supposed that Christ was against them, they would 
abandon their position as they would have nothing 
to gain but his displeasure. The parties cannot be 
suspected for such madness. If Pedo- Baptists did 
not believe that Jesus Christ was with them in their 
distinctive peculiarities, they would cease to be 
Pedo-Baptists, and vice versa. As matters »ow stand 



72 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY 

the parties have no center of unity. In Christ 
they are "divided." They are a "body" without a 
" head." They are as " sheep without a shepherd." 
In this state they must remain until they shall 
agree on some center of unity, and that must be 
a center of authority. Some person, human or 
divine, whose will (word) shall be an end of all 
strife, and command the subjection of "every man's 
conscience in the sight of God," must be agreed 
upon as the infallible umpire. 

So long as one party shall believe and teach that 
Jesus Christ commanded three ways of administer- 
ing an ordinance of his own appointment, and two 
classes of subjects differing as widely as the imbe- 
cility of infancy and the years of enligtened faith 
and obedience, and the other party shall believe 
and teach that he commanded but one way of bap- 
tizing, and only one class of subjects, their Christ 
is a divided Christ, for both parties claim him. 
Is Jesus Christ both a Pedo-Baptist and a Baptist ? 
Is Christ divided ? 

We have indulged in no hyperbole. We have 
not given an over- drawn picture, the parties them- 
selves being judges. 

We are strongly impressed with the conviction 
that if Pedo-Baptism and a diversity of modes 
were not now in existence, they would not be intro- 
duced in this year of grace. We know that there 
is a great falling off on the part of parents ; and 
we also know that very many who had been 
sprinkled in good faith are calling for immersion. 
It is true it was entailed upon many of the most 
worthy professors of this generation. But whether 
the Lord will accept the plea, " it was the work of 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 73 

our predecessors," is, to say the least, somewhat 
problematical. The living generation owe it to 
Jesus Christ, the church, and the world, to correct 
the errors of the past. In this duty and its faith- 
ful discharge, we find all the recuperative forces of 
human society. But for this there would be noth- 
ing self-restoring in Christianity. What is wrong 
now would remain wrong. We have no contro- 
versy with our fathers, but we have with our 
cotemporaries, and they have with us, and this will 
continue until our differences are adjusted, for 
a triumph by disintegration is hopeless. The honor 
of Jesus' Christ and of his " body, the church," and 
every spiritual interest demand adjustment. Can- 
did, prayerful review for Christ's sake would soon 
bring about this desirable consumation. Self must 
be forgotten. Our controversial literature must 
become waste paper, the New Testament history of 
baptism must be inquired of and be examined in 
the light of its own times and circumstances. 
This course has been satisfactory to every individ- 
ual, and would lead to the same happy results to 
the masses. Who will show that it would not ? 

What a humiliating fact that the last ordinance 
the risen Christ gave to the world should have been 
cause of so much strife and division. Baptism has 
both a positive and a representative meaning. In its 
chosen form it represents both his burial and rising 
from the dead. See Rom. 6: 4. " Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism into death : that like 
as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of 
the Father, even so we also should walk in newness 
of life." Was not this in the mind of Jesus when 
he said to his ministry, " Go ye, therefore, and teach 



74 THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVERSY. 

all nations, baptizing them/' etc.? If this imaging 
Jorth his own burial and resurrection had not been 
in the heart of Jesus, it should not have been in ths 
mouth of an apostle, for that would have been 
putting more into the institution than was intended 
by the institutor. It was then in the mind of 
Jesus, that the baptism of every convert should be 
a photograph of his own personal burial and 
resurrection from the dead. 

O, think, Christian reader, how the compassionate 
Redeemer has been misunderstood. We sympa- 
thize with those that are misrepresented. And 
have we not a falling tear for the misrepresented 
Christ ? 

Think again of many ecclesiastical duels that 
have been, and are yet being fought over this 
gracious ordinance, over the metaphoric burial 
and resurrection of Christ Oh ! how many 
claim that they have been baptized who have never 
shown this tribute of respect to these great facts, 
who have not confessed their faith in them by that 
formal action, " Therefore we are buried," etc. 

Has the apostle corrupted this ordinance ? Ha? 
he foisted into it what does not belong to it1 
Reader, answer these questions suggested by the 
inspired text ; by that impressive reminder 
" Know ye not that so many of us as were baptizec 
into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?* 



PART SECOND. 



CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

1st. If we have the history of baptism in that 
book whose title page reads, " The New Testament 
of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ/' then there 
can be no cause for this controversy. For historic 
statements are not matters of controversy, unless 
the integrity or competency of the historian may 
be justly challenged. 2nd. If we have no relia- 
ble, truthful history of baptism in this book, then 
there is no cause for controversy about that which 
we have not. In either case, this controversy is 
vain, foolish — sinful. If there was an issue on the 
last supposition, that might be cause of debate ; but 
the debate would not then be between believer and 
believer, but between believer and unbeliever. 
3rd. If the integrity or compentency of apostles 
and evangelists, in regard to the subject, mode, and 
design of baptism, is doubtful and uncertain, may 
it not be so, in regard to all they have recorded. 
May not all their documentary evidence concerning 
Jesus Christ be equally uncertain ? And who, on 
that hypothesis, can blame the infidel who rejects 
the whole ? 4th. " We cannot understand the 
Scripture alike." This often repeated apology for 
division is of doubtful truth. At least, it requires 
some revision. We may understand the Scriptures 



78 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

but imperfectly, or we may not understand at all j 
in either case we shall not understand the Scrip* 
tures alike, but when we understand the Scriptures, 
we understand them alike. This is true of every- 
thing that is true, of everything that is a subject 
of human learning. Those who understand any 
science, understand it alike. So long as their 
understanding is but in part, they will not agree, 
they cannot agree. The teacher and his pupil do 
understand the first lessons in grammar or mathe- 
matics, alike, but when the scholar understands the 
science, he understands it just as his instructor. 
The necessity of not understanding " alike " was not 
in the science, but in ignorance. So the necessity 
of not understanding the Scriptures alike, is not in 
the Scriptures, but our ignorance of the Scriptures, 
This must be so, if the sense of Scripture is one. 

This old, popular sectarian adage, " we cannot 
understand the Scriptures alike," is but an infidel- 
making device. This has been advocated by the 
pulpit and the press, and infidels of every school 
accept it as true ; and hence they say, and have a 
right to say, the Bible is like an instrument that 
may be set to play any tune the operator or the 
company may call for. Denominationally we un- 
derstand the teachings of the|Scriptures alike, on 
the subject of baptism. The true reason, there- 
fore, for not understanding the Scriptures alike 
on this controverted subject, is because we are not 
willing that our practice shall be directed by the 
Scriptures, and not because the Scriptures are un- 
intelligible and contradictory, 

5th. All institutions designed for popular accep- 
tance must be adapted to common intelligence. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVERSY. 79 

Baptism under John and Jesus was for the masses, 
for the uneducated, for the common people. u The 
poor have the gospel preached unto them." Jesus 
made it a cause of devout thanksgiving to his 
Father that he had hidden " these things from the 
wise and prudent and had revealed them unto 
babes," and upon this revelation he based that broad 
invitation, " Come unto me all ye that labor and 
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." The 
duty of baptism was not obscured then by the 
" wise and prudent," as it is now. There was no 
occasion then for Greek lexicons and classics. 

How sad the truth that as learning has increased, 
the revelations of God have been obscured and 
hidden from the popular mind- As it was in the 
latter days of the Jewish age, so it is now. The 
scribes have u taken away the key of knowledge," 
and the ordinance of baptism is taken away from 
the common people, into the hands of a learned 
ministry, who claim to be the divinely appointed 
custodians of the institution, and no more can it be 
said, "many heard, believed, and were baptized." 

6th. Much of the New Testament history is 
devoted to two baptisms, the baptism of John, or- 
dained by God himself, and that of Jesus Christ, 
after he arose from the dead. We shall now, after 
these prefatory statements, attempt (not as a ccro- 
trovertist) an exegesis of these two baptisms. This 
we desire, and we believe the desire will be well- 
pleasing to the Lord, and acceptable to all right- 
thinking Christians. We feel the great difficulty 
in the way of this self-imposed task, and our own 
incompetency to perform this work as it should be. 
I pray the Lord- to enable me to forget everything 



80 THE BAPTISMAL CONTBOVEftSY. 

controversial ; to write neither for nor against any 
party views or practices. 

THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 

This baptism is imbedded and enclosed within its 
own inspired history, and beyond this we can know 
nothing about it. To know why it was appointed, 
its ends and objects, we must first understand the 
relation between John and Jesus. That relation 
was the subject of prophecy. Matthew and Luke, 
in their biographical sketch of the ministry of John, 
refer to Isaiah 40 : 3, " For this is he that was 
spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice 
of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the 
way of the Lord, make his paths straight." And 
Mark referred to Malachi 3 : 1, " Behold I send 
my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare 
thy way before thee." The relation between John 
and Jesus was that of preparer and prepared for — 
preparation for a reception. Therefore John is 
very properly called the forerunner, the harbinger, 
John was not sent by God to prepare a people for 
heaven, a people the Lord would receive at his final 
coming to judge the world, but a people that would 
give the Lord a reception at his first coming. This 
was the avowed object of John's coming. 

These predictions as applied, very clearly indicate 
the relation between John and Jesus. John's 
preaching and his baptism were a preparatory work. 
In the wisdom of God this work was needful for 
the introduction, the " manifestation " of his Son 
to the Jews. Therefore the conception of John, 
his birth, his after-life — being " filled with the 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 81 

Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb," were all 
matters of divine foreordination, as were the concep- 
tion and after-life of Jesus. See Luke, first chapter. 

There were, according to prophecy and historic 
facts, two distinct objects in the baptism of John, but 
both these objects centered upon Jesus. The first 
was to prepare a people for the Lord, and the second 
was to introduce the Lord to the prepared people — a 
people especially prepared by the belief of the Lord's 
near approach, and repentance, based upon the facts 
that the promised Christ was now " standing among " 
them, and a baptism in water, confessing their sins. 
This preparatory work was something new. It was 
an unrolling, an unfolding of prophecy, both as 
respected John and Jesus, but differing widely in 
its bearings upon John and Jesus. John was God's 
appointed agent, but Jesus was the subject of that 
agency. 

John's ministry was not assumed, and his baptism 
was not his in the sense of origination. It was his 
because he was the first ordained administrator. He 
was the first man and the last man sent of God — 
commissioned of God to baptize u with water." 
John was inquired of by a people quite as competent, 
and more deeply interested than we. Let us hear 
their questionings : 

" And this is the record of John, when the Jews 
sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, 
Who art thou ? And he confessed, and denied not, 
but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked 
him, What then ? Art thou Elias ? And he saith, 
I am not. Art thou that prophet ? And he 
answered, No. * * Who art thou ? that we may 
give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest 



82 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one 
crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of 
the Lord. * * Why baptizest thou then, if," 
etc. " John answered them, saying, I baptize with 
water ; but there is one standing among you, w T hom 
ye know not. * * This is he of whom I said, After 
me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for 
he was before me. And I knew him not ; but that 
he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I 
come baptizing with water. * * And I knew 
him not ; but he that sent me to baptize with water, 
the same said unto me," etc. 

These inquiries elicited the following facts : 1. 
That John was a crier (herald), and Jesus was the 
one for whom he was crying. 2. That John, like 
the Jews, knew him not ; for he said to the messen- 
gers, " Whom ye know not.'' This is in the present 
tense. They did not yet know that he was the Son 
of God. John said, " And I knew him not.' ; This 
is in the past tense. Both John and the Jews knew 
Jesus as a man, personally. When he came to be 
baptized, John said to him, " I have need to be bap- 
tized of thee/' and the Jews said, " Is not this the 
son of Joseph ?" but neither John nor the Jews 
knew Jesus to be the Son of God, before he w T as bap- 
tized. John says, " And I knew him not ; but he 
that sent me to baptize with water, the same said 
unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit 
descending, and remaining on him, the same is he 
which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw 
and bear record that this is the Son of God." 3. 
Before the baptism of Jesus, John knew that he was 
sent of God to prepare a people for the Lord. 4. 
He also knew that his baptizing with water was a 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 83 

part of that preparing process. 5. He also knew by 
what infallible signs he should recognize the Lord of 
prophecy, for whom he was now T making a " straight 
way." 6. John also knew that the u manifestation " 
of this personage to Israel would be in some way 
connected with his baptizing with water. But who 
he was he knew not, until he saw the " Spirit 
descend." 

All these points are brought out in answer to the 
questions proposed by the" priests and Levites," and 
have a direct bearing on the mission of John the 
Baptist, and the relation of his heaven-ordained 
mission to both the Jews and to Jesus. 

" Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to be 
baptized of him." This was the first public act of 
his life. The motive of his coming was to be bap- 
tized, but what was the motive of his baptism ? It 
was not the ordinary motive for wdiich the Jews 
were baptized. His baptism was not attended with a 
confession of sins. He did not receive the baptism 
of repentance for the remission of sins, neither was 
the motive of his baptism induction into the priest's 
office, for the baptism of John was no part of that 
ceremony. " For if he were on earth, he should 
not be a priest." Heb. 8 : 4. He was made a 
priest "with an oath." Heb. 7 : 21. "For it is 
evident that our Lord sprang out of the tribe of 
Judah ; of which tribe Moses said nothing concern- 
ing priesthood." Heb. 7 : 14. 

The motive of the baptism of Jesus was extraor- 
dinary — unique. What that was must be gathered 
from the accompanying incidents. u And Jesus, 
when he was baptized, w r ent up straightway out of 
the water ; and lo, the heavens were opened unto 



84 THE BAPTISMAL CONTBOVEBSY. 

him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a 
dove, and lighting upon him : and lo, a* voice 
from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased.'' This is what John 
referred to when he said to the "priests and Levites," 
" And I knew him not ; but that he should be made 
manifest to Israel, therefore am I come, baptizing 
with water. r Therefore I am come, etc. The lan- 
guage suggests that, but for this manifestation, he 
would not have come baptizing with water. This 
manifestation, whatever it may have been, was the 
prime object of John's mission and baptism. But 
for this there would have been no man " sent from 
God " whose name was John. There would have 
been no John and no water baptism. And if there 
bad been a Jesus, he would have been manifested to 
Israel by some other means, or not at all. But 
according to the wisdom of God these were the best 
m§ans to promote the end — a manifestation — to 
revgal what was unknown. These were the best 
means that infinite wisdom could devise. When 
God; appoints means for the accomplishment of cer- 
tain, ends they are not only the best, but they are 
the only means perfectly adapted to secure the ends 
proposed. 

God then did appoint an immersion in water, and 
a coming up out of the water, to be the occasion of 
the greatest, the most stupendous event, namely, the 
revelation of his Son, his only begotten Son, to the 
world. The divine philosophy underlying this choice 
of means, we may not understand but the fact that 
this was God's own choice, we do understand, and 
with that only we have to do. To view this or any- 
thing analogous from a human stand-point, we would 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 85 

say there is a strangeness about it. But the strange- 
ness does not consist in preparing and pre-arranging 
time, place, and people, for this is according to the 
usages of this world, when distinguished personages 
are to be introduced ; and according to the dignity 
of the person will be the preparation and the occa- 
sion. God might have had some great national 
occasion when he conferred the honor of introduc- 
tion upon his Son. He might have chosen one of 
the great national anniversaries, the Passover, or Pen- 
tecost, when that great nation would have been 
largely, honorably, ai d religiously represented in the 
national metropolis. He might have introduced his 
Son to the people in the most magnificent temple, 
his own house, reared by his own orders, of which he 
was himself the architect. He might have intro- 
duced him in the presence of all the dignitaries, the 
singers, and the organs. But the strangeness consists 
in this, that God should cause a man to be born out 
of the ordinary course of human propagation, ("And 
they had no child, because that Elizabeth was barren ; 
and they both were now well stricken in years, ,, ) 
and then give that man a special commission to bap- 
tize with water, that he u might manifest" his Son 
u to Israel," — was so entirely aside from human 
usages and proprieties — in this consists the strange- 
ness of this procedure. That God should have 
appointed an action which has always been regarded 
as a great humiliation, as a part of that process by 
which a people should be prepared to look for the 
long-promised Messiah as being just at hand, 
" standing among " them, but unknown to them, and 
then, as the final and ultimate end of that baptizing 
with water, Jesus himself appeared as a subject for 



86 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

baptism, in the presence of the people prepared to 
give him a reception. " Surely the Lord's ways are 
not as our ways." 

We said above that the baptism of Jesus was the 
ultimate end of that baptizing with water. "Now, 
when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, 
that Jesus also being baptized," etc. Luke 3 : 21. 
This language suggests that the baptism of Jesus was 
the ultimatum of John's baptism. Every, other 
object was secondary and subordinate to this; 
" Therefore am I come baptizing with water," said 
John. 

As respects the Jews, John's baptism was prepa- 
ration ; as respects Jesus, it was "manifestation;" 
as respects God, it was the chosen occasion of public 
recognition. 

In this baptismal scene there are four independent 
events so closely connected in the order of time that 
they cannot be separated. The coming up out of the 
water, the opened heavens, the descending Spirit, the 
voice of recognition, " This is my beloved Son" 
This voice was the manifestation, all beside this were 
only God's chosen accompaniments. God reserved 
to himself the honor of making known the unknown 
and unknowable relation between himself and his 
Son Jesus. God had himself chosen the time, place, 
and the occasion for this great revelation — for this 
u manifestation to Israel/' So soon as this ostensible 
object of John's mission was accomplished, he began 
to wane. " And they came unto John and said unto 
him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to 
whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, 
and all men come unto him. John answered * * 
ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said I am not 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 87 

the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that 
hath the bride is the bridegroom ; but the friend of 
the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, 
rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice : 
this my joy is fulfilled. He must increase, but I 
must decrease/' No language could express becom- 
ing greater, more eminent, as respected Jesus, and 
becoming less, gradually diminishing, as respected 
himself, with greater force. 

" All men come unto him, r said the Jews. This 
elicited the figures the " bride,'' the " bridegroom," 
and the " friend." The literal, the fact, Jesus has 
the people. I prepared for him a people. He has 
accepted the people I prepared, and the people have 
accepted him ; my joy is fulfilled. From the baptism 
of Jesus, John began to decrease. John was sprung 
upon the nation like the full moon at her rising, and 
like her he soon, began to wane. The prophecy 
" prepare ye the way of the Lord," was now r fulfilled. 
Jesus was now made manifest to Israel. These two 
objects were accomplished, and could not be repeated. 
But John's mission did not come to a close suddenly. 
His baptism was a disciple-making institution, and 
had an intimate relation to the coming " kingdom," 
and in these secondary objects he might still continue 
to preach and baptize, and for these objects (we infer) 
Jesus baptized and " made more disciples than John." 
But John's mission, being only a preparatory work, 
it was therefore temporary and sectional. As sec- 
tional as circumcision, the Passover, or the Sabbath. 
It had reference to the Jews only. 

The object of faith John preached, was an un- 
known person. " Then said Paul, John verily bap- 
tized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the 



88 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

people, that they should believe on him which should 
come after him ; that is, on Christ Jesus." Acts 19 : 
4. This faith was temporary, for Jesus was soon 
made known. " This is my beloved Son/' saith the 
Father. * Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is 
at hand." This could only be the motive of repent- 
ance until the kingdom of heaven did come. u That 
he might be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I 
come baptizing with water rj was a momentary work. 
" And he came into all the country about Jordan, 
preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission 
of sins/' This new law of "remission of sins" was 
also of short continuance. There was neither altar, 
priest, nor bloody offering connected with remission 
of sins as preached by John. It was therefore like 
legal remission, prospective, the only prospect and 
meritorious sin-offering being not yet made. His 
disciples continued with him but a short time. When 
John said to two of his disciples, " Behold the Lamb 
of God," "they followed Jesus." 

John's baptism, with all its immediate aims and 
objects, was a local and temporary work, and ceas- 
ed with the death of Jesus. After that eveift it was 
no more a living institution. It had done its work 
and passed away. 

But a fair exegesis requires that we should look at 
some of the consequents of John's baptism, for great 
results followed long after it had ceased in fact. 
We now use the phrase, John's baptism, as used by 
Jesus and by Paul as indicating his entire mission. 
When Jesus was defending his claims as the sent of 
God with the opposing Jews, he referred them to his 
baptism by John. " Nay, the Father, who sent me, 
has himself attested me. Did you never hear his 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 89 

voice, or see his person ? Or have you forgotten his 
declaration, that you believe not him whom he has 
sent forth?" John 5: 37. Campbell's transla- 
tion : " And many resorted unto him, and said, John 
did no miracle, but all things that John said of this 
man were true. And many believed on him there." 
These, then, on the testimony of John, were prepared 
for the Lord. Again, there were the twelve men at 
Ephesus, who knew nothing but the baptism of John. 
As soon as Christ was preached to them they were 
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. They too 
were prepared by John's baptism to accept Jesus 
Christ. 

In the 7th chapter of Luke, Jesus was speaking to 
the people concerning John. " He asked them, What 
went ye out for to see ? A reed shaken with the 
wind ? A man clothed in soft raiment ? A prophet? 
Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a proph- 
et. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I 
send my messenger before thy face, which shall pre- 
pare thy way before thee. For I say unto you," etc. 

After these questions and statements concerning 
John, Luke grouped together the most tremendous 
consequences growing out of John's baptism. " And 
all the people that heard him, and the publicans jus- 
tified God, being baptized with the baptism of John." 
This and the following verse throw much light on 
the subject of our present writing, and should be 
carefully considered. The word " justified" in the 
text cannot be applied to God in its legal or -evan- 
gelical sense. The translator referred to above has 
the word " honored," honored God. This expresses 
the sense most clearly. The two members of the 
sentence are related as proposition and proof. And 



90 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

all the people that heard him, (Jesus) and the publi- 
cans honored God. This is an affirmation. The 
proof is being baptized with the baptism of John. 
They conferred a two-fold honor upon God. 1. 
They honored God, they obeyed God, when they were 
baptized of John. 2. They honored God -when 
they heard Jesus. 3. The baptism of John had 
prepared " the people " and " the publicans " to hear 
him, (Jesus). This stands as one of the resultants 
of John's baptism. 

a But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the coun- 
sel of God against themselves, being not baptized of 
him." The two members of this sentence are also 
related as proposition and proof. That the Pharisees 
and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against them- 
selves, is also an affirmation. And the evidence of 
this affirmation is, being not baptized of him. What- 
ever the counsel of God was at that time, the Phari- 
sees and lawyers rejected, when they rejected the 
baptism of John, and the people and the publicans 
accepted the divine counsel when they were baptized 
of John. 

These were grave results. The purposes of God 
w^ere enclosed in the formality of John's baptism ; 
hence, as a necessary sequence, those who submitted 
to it honored God, i. e., they received John as a man 
sent from God. They accepted John in his official 
relation to God, to themselves, and to Jesus. But the 
Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, 
both as respected John and Jesus. John's baptism 
being inductive into the then present purposes of God, 
so far as revealed, it was the God-ordained turning 
point of a formal acceptance, or a formal rejection. 
This is true of all inductives, as respects marriage, 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 91 

society, or government. Inductives are representa- 
tive institutions. They represent the whole of that 
of which they are a part ; hence Luke's style. One 
party honored God, being baptized with the baptism 
of John. He says nothing of their belief, repentance, 
or confession of sins. They honored God, being bap- 
tized, etc. Of the other party, he says they rejected 
God, being not baptized of him. In neither case 
does he say anything of internal conditions. Induc- 
tive formalities are in all cases the exponents of in- 
ternal conditions. They express the approval, the 
cordial acceptance of that to which they give access — 
entrance. Therefore, it was only important for the 
writer to say of the parties, they were baptized, or 
they were not baptized. This brings us into the 
sacred style, — a style that has been lost on account 
of our baptismal controversy, and must be restored, 
in order to peace. 

Induction implies mental condition, but mental 
condition does not imply induction. This is the 
assumptive Scripture style of which we shall say more 
hereafter. 

John's baptism was a great institution, worthy of 
the God who ordained it. It was great and benefi- 
cient both in its immediate and after results. That 
God who knows the end from the beginning knew 
that such a preparation was essential to success. 
That not by supernaturalism, but by moral means — 
by turning the people from sin to righteousness, could 
his Son receive a suitable recognition and reception, 
by even a fragmental part of the nation. 

In the 10th chapter of John we are told that the 
Jews took up stones a second time, to stone Jesus be- 
cause he claimed to be the Son of God ; then comes 



92 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the fact before cited : " And many resorted unto him, 
and said, John did no miracle : but all things which 
John spake of this man were true. And many be- 
lieved on him there." This was some time after- 
John was beheaded, and very significantly sets forth 
the far-reaching influence of John's baptism. Those 
who had accepted John as a man sent from God, re- 
membered his testimony concerning the coming 
Christ, and many believed on him. It may be safely 
questioned whether Jesus could have had a favorable 
hearing, with even the common people, but for the 
baptism of John. But for that, it is at least quite 
problematical whether three thousand would have 
been baptized on Pentecost, and a multitude of the 
priests had become obedient to the faith. 

John's baptism was not a subject of controversy in 
New Testament times. The personal prerequisites 
were not adapted to infantile conditions. John's 
baptism being still under the law, but not of the law, 
it did not introduce its subjects into covenant, or 
church relations, for the Church of Christ was not 
yet built, t} (upon this rock will I build my church, 
said Jesus), but into a preparatory work for future 
results. 

And as to its several designs, these were too clearly 
stated to be matters of misunderstanding. And the 
same is true of the mode. John having said, "He 
that sent me to baptize with water," it is not supposa- 
ble that he, as God's appointed administrator, was not 
definitely informed how to perform the act expressed 
by the verb baptizing. And it would not be very 
complimentary to Jesus to suppose that he did not 
know the will of his Father in this, or knowing it he 
would not do it. " And Jesus, when he was baptized, 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 93 

went up straightway out of the water/' Here are 
two distinct actions. The responses from heaven 
were to the second, coming "up out of the water." 
In sprinkling, there is but one action. If Jesus had 
been sprinkled, this would have changed the facts 
and the statement of his baptism. The descending 
dove and that most simple form of introduction, 
" This is my beloved Son," would have been associat- 
ed with a widely different action. As different as a 
coming "up out of" and a coming away from. This 
first detailed statement of baptism should be regarded 
as decisive on the question of mode. The first full 
historic statement of any repeated action must in all 
cases be accepted as the true statement of that action, 
unless after statements demand another construction. 
And the difference can only apply to some of the cir- 
cumstances. If the differences go too far. the iden- 
tity of the original action is lost. And according to 
the importance and definiteness of the first statement 
must be the clearness of after statements to justify a 
departure from the first. If, then, there are no after 
statements that contravene the first, that render the 
first inadmissible, the first must in all cases be ac- 
cepted as the true exponent of that action. And as 
there are no cases of New Testament baptism where 
a going down into the water and a coming up out of 
the water were impossible, the baptism of Jesus lifts 
up its rule against every other mode. This would 
be so understood by every unsophisticated man, who 
could intelligibly read the Queen's English. He 
would w r ant no assistance from the Greeks to see 
through the hidings of King James. 

Any labored argument as respects the mode of 
John's baptism would be gratuitous, aud might be 



94 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

construed into a concession we are not prepared to 
make. We shall, therefore, only add two other 
statements for the sake of showing uniformity. 

" And there went out unto him all the land of 
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were baptized of 
him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." 
Mark 1: 5. In the river of Jordan. "No com- 
ment could it plainer make." Pollock on faith. 

u And John also was baptized in Enon, near the 
Salim, because there was much water there." John 
3 : 23. 

The thought expressed by the words " because 
there was much water there/' is a facility to accom- 
plish some object. "Baptizing" is the antecedent to 
"much water," therefore, the facility sought for in 
going to that place of much water was for baptizing 
—that is the natural sense of the passage. Every 
other meaning is a forced meaning, and betrays an 
unworthy motive, a state of mind in opposition to the 
will of God, and is therefore exceedingly sinful. 

The historic clearness with which John's baptism 
is set forth in the record, makes it a matter of deep 
regret and profound astonishment that it should ever 
have been a subject of controversy. But that it was 
not during the times of John, or Jesus, or the apostles, 
is a vindication of the divine Founder of that institu- 
tion. It is satisfactory proof that in its verbal pre- 
sentation to the Jews, it was clear and definite in 
statement, and that the cause of debate and strife 
has originated in the perverseness of the human heart 
and denominational selfishness. 

From this brief exegesis of John's baptism the 
reader will have seen that this first historic baptism 
had its time, accomplished the etids for which it was 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 95 

ordained, and by a decreasing process passed away. 
When the reasons for which God had ordained that 
institution no longer existed, that institution ceased. 

We shall now speak of another baptism. A bap- 
tism ordained by Jesus Christ. A baptism that will 
never cease. A baptism that will never be super- 
ceded so long as there is one sinner unsaved. This., 
like the preceding baptism, has its own New Testa- 
ment history, and this history is the only reliable 
source of information in regard to it. The baptis- 
mal controversy has most clearly proved the truth of 
this statement, i. #., that without the New Testament 
records the church is positively helpless and hopeless 
as repects any correct belief or practice in regard to 
this ordinance. The disputers in the church have 
now had time enough, learning enough, and religion 
enough to have come to some satisfactory agreement 
as to who should be baptized — how, and what for. 
It would be just as reasonable to suppose that the old 
heathen philosophers could have saved the Gentile 
world from idolatry by their w T isdom and learning, as 
that the church can now be saved from the sin and 
shame of this baptismal strife by its longer continu- 
ance. That the church may conserve the little that 
yet remains, she must come to the inspired history 
of the institution, for it has already been mooted 
in some evangelical quarters whether baptism should 
be perpetuated in the church. 

Where are the disputers ? Has not their wisdom 
been made folly ? Is not their wisdom and learning, 
and the learning of the ages past exhausted ? And 
what have been the results ? 

That we may make an intelligible approach to the 
baptism of which we now speak, let us give attention 



96 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

to the qualifying terms and phrases by which the 
former is distinguished from the latter. The first 
baptism was commanded by God to John, as God 
commanded circumcision to Abraham, and the pass- 
over to Moses. It is called, u John's baptism.'' 
And Jesus said, " The baptism of John, from whence 
isit? ? ' Of Apollos it is said, he " knew nothing 
but the baptism of John.'' Then there are the bap- 
tisms, " with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (of 
which we do not now speak,) which are also distin- 
guished from the other baptisms by their own quali- 
fying terms. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is an 
unscriptural and a most deceptive designation. The 
Scripture designation is "with the Holy Spirit " and 
never of the Holy Spirit. The prepositions with 
and of are not words of the same import. Baptized 
of the Holy Spirit suggests to the mind that the 
Holy Spirit is his own administrator. That himself 
baptizes with himself. This corruption of the inspir- 
ed text has corrupted all the present philosophies of 
conversion, and is a robbery perpetrated on Jesus 
Christ, for in the popular mind Jesus Christ is not 
the administrator, but the Holy Ghost is his own ad- 
ministrator. But the Scripture statement is without 
one exception, with the Holy Ghost, and never once 
of the Holy Ghost. The baptism of the Holy Ghost 
is therefore a grave and most stupendous deception. 
The baptism Jesus commanded to his apostles has 
no qualifying adjectives. It is not called the bap- 
tism of Jesus Christ, nor yet the baptism of the apos- 
tles. It is called baptism, and once qualified by a 
word of number — " One baptism." It is then con- 
tradistinguished from every other baptism by the 
simple unqualified noun, baptism. But such is the 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 97 

propensity of the human heart to corrupt the word of 
God, that in controversial parlance it is qualified by 
the word water — " water baptism. 11 This is another 
deception. This qualification suggests by fair impli- 
cation that there is another baptism — a baptism 
that is a chronological parallel with this. There is 
a necessity for this unscriptural qualification to keep 
company with one referred to above, i. e., "the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost." This qualifying phrase, 
"water baptism," is always used in a disparaging 
sense, intimating that this water baptism is of less 
importance than the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
Such is the relative disparity between the two bap- 
tisms that those who imagine that they have been 
baptized with the more important, feel no need of 
what they are pleased to call water baptism. Neither 
John, nor Jesus, nor the apostles qualified the word 
baptism with the word water. Peter said, "Who can 
forbid water, that these should not be baptized?'' and 
John said, "I indeed baptize you with water," and 
again, he said, " But he that sent me to baptize with 
water." The qualifying phrase, water baptism, is, 
therefore, a great reproach to God. This unwarrant- 
able liberty to coin new terms and phrases, and foist 
them into the inspired text, has been the cause of 
soul ruin to many. How often has the preacher 
been met with the contemptuous sneer, water bap- 
tism, and upon this implied worthlessness, water bap- 
tism, the Quakers have rejected this Christ-ordained 
ordinance as a mere Jewish ceremonial, and a thing 
of naught. 

This history of these baptisms is definite in formal 
statement. We have "John's baptism," "baptize 
with the Holy Ghost," and "baptism with fire," and 
7 



98 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

baptism. These scriptural discriminations were 
needful to prevent confusion. .To blend, to mix 
things separate and distinct, is to destroy the whole. 
The Spirit of wisdom has, therefore, .with great cau- 
tion surrounded these baptisms with every needful 
safeguard. The plea of indefiniteness, and the right 
of liberty-taking, has been rebuked by the definite 
chosen language of the record, " so that they are 
without excuse/ 7 

We now come to that which is called baptism, 
without any qualifying prefix or affix. As this was 
last in the order of development, it is therefore last 
in the order of time and history. " And Jesus came 
and spake unto them, saying, All power is given 
unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, 
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
Teaching them,'' etc. " All power is given unto me 
in heaven and in earth. v This was an extraordinary 
claim. It was the last claim Jesus asserted for him- 
self. If all that Jesus asserted for himself before 
was aggregated, it would not be equal to this. And 
without this all his previous claims would have been 
meaningless, as they would have had no ultimatum. 
In some other translations we have the word author- 
ity. But the words power and authority have the 
same meaning in a legislative sense. Jesus was now 
giving his final charge to his chosen ministry. It 
was therefore needful that he should fix their respec- 
tive meets and boundaries — settle most definitely the 
limits of their powers. All power is given unto me. 
This admits of no equal power, no inferior power in 
the order of rank, and no discretionary power. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 99 

There was then no division of power between Jesus 
and his ministry. 

This language was addressed to the eleven, for as 
yet there was neither priest, prelate, nor pope — no 
rival. " All power is given unto me, in heaven and 
in earth." This was a new power, or it was a new 
development of a power that was neither new nor old 
but eternal. It was a bringing down and an adapt- 
ing of Almighty power, God-power, to humanity, as 
never before. The giving, the delegation of this* 
power to the man Christ Jesus, was the greatest 
novelty in the world, and in process of time it has 
called forth more rivalry and rival claimants than all 
worldly rivalships in the aggregate. 

It is a matter of thankfulness to God that the 
eleven understood their risen Lord, now speaking to 
them in a tone of personal authority, as he had not 
spoken to them before ; that they humbly accepted 
the position he assigned them, and were content with 
being only the executives of his will. 

There are but two specifications in these instruc- 
tions, i. e., teaching and baptizing. As their after 
history proves, from the^se instructions they never 
departed. If they had baptized those incapable of 
instruction, on account of idiotic or infantile condi- 
tions, or those who refused teaching, this would have 
been departure — rivalry. Or if they had baptized 
first and then taught, it would have been rivalry. 
It would have been disputing the claim of universal 
supremacy with Jesus Christ. 

Teach all nations, baptizing them, was the order. 
To depart from this order without a permit from him 
who had all power, would have been then just what 
it would have been at any after period. What is 



100 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEESY. 

involved in the first specification is involved in the 
second, baptizing them. The same definiteness must 
have attached to the one as to the other, as the final 
charge left no room for the exercise of any discre- 
tionary power. And as this was the beginning of 
baptism, the origination, definite instruction to the 
administrators was essential. 

At the time of this last commission, the eleven 
were familiar with the word "baptizing ," and the 
action represented by that word : so were the Jews 
of Jerusalem, and the region round about. Their 
ears heard it, and their eyes saw it, and their bodies 
felt it. John preached it, and very many obeyed it, 
and were baptized in the " river of Jordan." Jesus 
himself was first a subject of it, and then he was an 
administrator. " And Jesus, when he was baptized, 
went up straightway out of the water." " Jesus 
made and baptized more disciples than John. ,, 

We may assume that baptism, beginning with the 
"baptism of John/' until the final charge to the 
eleven, was immersion. Immersion was a well-estab- 
lished law, the law of authority and the law of cus- 
tom, and without some special authoritative counter 
manding instructions, this custom could not have been 
changed. Religious habits are stubborn things, and 
will not be departed from without good cause. After 
Jesus arose from the dead, he claimed all power in 
heaven and earth, and upon that claim he commanded 
eleven men to baptize. These men knew the mean- 
ing of that command. They baptized while acting 
under their first commission, and as they baptized 
under their first commission, so they would have bap- 
tized under the second, unless they had been notified 
of a change. A change in the mode would have 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 101 

required a change of language — a change of words. 
The old familiar word baptizing would have retained 
the old familiar action. Without another active verb 
in the new commission commanding them to baptize, 
they would have continued the old order. As Jesus 
Christ made no change, and as immersion was firmly 
fixed in the apostolic and in the Jewish mind, there- 
fore, what baptizing was under John, it was under 
Jesus. The same definiteness of language and of 
action before, obtained afterwards, unless there was a 
change subsequent to the final charge. Moreover, 
as Jesus gave the command, " baptizing them," but 
once, and that is recorded in Matt. 28 : 19, the his- 
toric facts cited bring the controversy, as respects 
mode, within very narrow limits. Truth will not 
demur against this. We conclude, therefore, that as 
baptizing was immersing for four years and a half, 
under the direct command of God, and re-enacted by 
his Son Jesus Christ, without indicating any change, 
any departure from what the people had both heard, 
seen, and experienced, that there is no room for con- 
troversy as respects scriptural baptism, as regards the 
mode. 

The following is a suggestive coincidence : The 
first public act of Jesus was his baptism. " He 
came up straightway out of the water." And his 
first and his last personal and official act, after he 
had arisen from the dead, after he was invested with 
all power in heaven and in earth, was his instruction 
to his chosen ministry, " Go ye therefore, teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 



102 THH BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Hianded you. And, lo, I am with you alway, even 
unto the end of the world." 

When we look at this ordinance, with its present 
denominational entanglements in mind, we cannot 
resist the conviction that there are spiritual aims, 
divine saving designs involved, but imperfectly under- 
stood, if understood at all. We think the truth of 
tRis statement will become more manifest as we shall 
progress in our investigation. 

In the last chapter of Mark we have the final 
charge in a somewhat varied statement. "Afterward 
he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and 
upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of 
heart, because they believed not them which had seen 
him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go 
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Preach the gospel to every creature corresponds with 
teach all nations, in Matthew. Then the writer 
changes from the preacher to those preached to and 
speaks of results. " Believeth " is a result. "Bap- 
tized is a result." " Saved is a result." Preaching 
is the cause, and belief, baptism, and salvation are 
consequences. The relation between the four speci- 
fications of this form of the last charge to the apostles 
is as antecedent and consequent. But the first three 
center upon the last, shall be saved. Neither belief 
nor baptism are ultimatums, but " shall be saved w is 
both grammatically and logically an end. Matthew 
specifies only the duties of the apostles, " Teach all 
nations, baptizing them." He speaks of no results. 
The different designs of the writers made the differ- 
ence in formal statement. What is implied in Mat- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 103 

thew is expressed by Mark. The acceptance of the 
teaching before baptizing is implied in Matthew, and 
" believeth " before baptized, and u baptized ^ before 
"saved/* is Christ's own classification in Mark. 
This order the apostles could not change without 
assuming a responsibility challenging the supremacy 
of Jesus Christ. 

If they had baptized infants, to whom they could 
not preach, or if they had baptized adults who did 
not believe, or if they had promised salvation before 
baptism, they would have been self-condemned, for 
this would have been " another gospel." See Gal. 
1:8. Such supposition, as respects the apostles, 
who were under the divine guidance, is speaking 
" after the manner of men.'' Their after history 
will fully prove their fidelity to Christ, and that they 
kept their solemn charge inviolate. 

There are two sides in the apostle's commission, 
the human and the divine. Preaching the gospel 
was a human instrumentality. Believing the gospel 
was the exercise of a natural human function, dif- 
fering only in the testimony and the object believed 
from any other belief. And baptism was also human. 
It was something done by man for man. But all 
these human instrumentalities were of divine ap- 
pointment. The promise, u shall be saved," lifts 
the case out of the human into the divine. It is this 
that makes the preaching of the apostles gospel. 
But why is the preaching enjoined on them called 
the gospel ? Gro preach the gospel. This is the 
most important question suggested by the reading. 
If we fail in understanding this, we fail in the whole. 
It is a pity that there is a cloud resting upon that 
which should be and might be as clear as the light. 



104 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

The reason of this darkness is this : Gospel, being 
an untranslated word, is not understood by the En- 
glish reader. If we had the phrase glad tidings 
in the text the sense would be clear. The word gos- 
pel, like the words baptize and church, by royal 
authority was left untranslated in the New Testa- 
ment. In the prophecies of the Old the word gos- 
pel is translated, but in the fulfillment of prophecy 
in the New the word gospel is untranslated. In 
Isaiah 61 : 1 we read, u The Spirit of the Lord God 
is upon me ; because the Lord hath anointed me to 
preach good tidings to the meek/' And in Luke 4 : 
18 w^e read, " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, 
because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to 
the poor." Jesus having read this prophecy in the 
synagogue, said, " This day is this Scripture fulfill- 
ed in your ears." Good tidings in the prophecy is 
English, but gospel is Greek, in the fact in the 
accomplishment of the prediction therefore, not one 
in a thousand knows what Jesus meant when he said 
to the apostles, " preach the gospel to every creature/' 
The word gospel whensoever or by whomsoever 
translated has always been by the phrase glad tidings. 
Now we restate the question, what is there in the 
last commission to the apostles that makes it glad 
tidings ? We answer, the promise, " shall be saved." 
Shall be saved is the only element in it that makes it 
glad tidings ; /or, " but he that believeth not shall be 
damned," is a part of that commission, and the apos- 
tles were just as much commanded by Jesus Christ 
to preach that to every creature as, " he that believ- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved/' The quality of 
glad tidings does not consist in believing, nor yet in 
being baptized. There is no glad tidings in the dis- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 105 

charge of duty, however cheerfully the command may 
be obeyed. Jesus commanded the apostles to preach 
the glad tidings to the nations. The word tidings 
means news, something that has come to pass not 
known before. The tidings may be cause of glad- 
ness or of sadness. But the risen Christ qualified 
his tidings with the word glad. The adjective glad 
qualifying the word tidings, these tidings possess the 
inherent quality to cause gladness, without any ref- 
erence to how the tidings may be received. The 
apostles were commanded to preach not tidings, nor 
yet glad tidings, in any ordinary acceptation, but the 
glad tidings, by way of eminence, because the bur- 
den of these tidings is salvation. Shall be saved is 
the significance of these tidings. And what they 
are to one they are to all to whomsoever these tidings 
may come. 

All this is sententiously expressed in the angelic 
announcement of the nativity, " And the angel said 
unto them, Fear not ; for, behold, I bring you good 
tidings of great joy, which shall be unto all people. 
For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, 
a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." 

u And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world 
and preach the glad tidings to every creature. He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Be- 
lieveth and is baptized are conditions. Conditions 
are stipulations on which something else depends. 
Usually terms "on which a promise is suspended. 
This is the natural relation between the words believ- 
eth, baptized, saved. The word saved gives the 
quality of the glad tidings to the whole. Take the 
promise, shall be saved, out of Christ's final charge to 
the eleven, and what would remain would not be glad 



106 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. . 

tidings to sinners. To those who have the oppor- 
tunity and ability to hear the glad tidings, this rela- 
tion of condition and promise is immutable as the 
relation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the bap- 
tismal formula. 

If it was in the power of men to sever conditions, 
and promises, to break up the relations between 
the divine and the human, all would be lost. To 
illustrate this, let me bring Mark 16 : 15, 16, into 
contrast with an error that should be corrected, 
namely, that the promise, shall be saved, is before 
baptism, when the text has placed the promise after 
baptism. In this, all the religious bodies agree, 
(save one,) who leave the promise where Jesus Christ 
has placed it, after believeth and is baptized — and 
this is the most odious peculiarity of that people. 
According to the present evangelical preaching, 
Jesus should have said, " He that believeth and is 
saved shall be baptized.' ' Do they not all require evi- 
dence of sins forgiven before they will administer 
baptism ? And do not all who are converted under 
this teaching believe that they have experienced sal- 
vation before they are fit subjects for baptism ? This 
view changes the whole aspect of Christ's instruc- 
tions to his apostles. It makes void baptism as one 
of the conditions of the promise, shall be saved. It 
changes the order thus. It removes the conjunction 
"and " from its place. In the text, the conjunction 
is between believeth and baptized, but this error 
moves the conjunction forward, and puts it between 
the promise, shall be saved, and baptized, and before 
baptized. He that believeth is saved, and shall be 
baptized. This not only deranges Christ's own 
classification, but it interpolates his teachings in the 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 107 

minds of those who accept this theory of conversion. 
It makes the promise, shall be saved, rest upon 
another predicate. The assurance Jesus Christ 
commanded his apostles to give to those who believed 
and were baptized was his own word of promise. 
But this theory makes the assurance of salvation 
rest upon an experience, and upon that experience 
the applicant is baptized. It is not, then, upon a 
trustful faith in the divine promise, but something 
called experience. That experience may be true or 
false, real or imaginary, but it is not the basis of 
the promise, shall be saved. Jesus said to his chosen 
witnesses, u Preach the glad tidings to every crea- 
ture. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.'' 
This language describes a process. This is its nat- 
ural sense, and cannot by any law of interpretation 
be adjusted to an instantaneous miraculous, or semi- 
miraculous conversion. 

The promise, shall be saved, is not in the prob- 
able sense as something that may be, but in the posi- 
tive sense. The words "shall be saved" must refer to 
the present life or the future life — saved in the sense 
of forgiveness of sins, or saved in the sense of ulti- 
mate eternal salvation. Let it be present or future, 
the promise is positive — shall be saved. It affects 
not the positiveness of the promise, whether it is in 
the present or future. But in a fair exegesis we 
must understand it in the present tense, connected 
with present conditions, believeth and is baptized. 
"Shall" being primarily in the present tense, the 
promise, shall be saved, relates to the present life. 
Saved in the sense of justified. Saved in the sense 
of the New Covenant, of which Christ is the media- 



108 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

tor. "For I will be merciful to their unrighteous- 
ness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember 
no more.''. Heb. 8 ; 12. " Thou shalt call his 
name Jesus : for he shall save his people from their 
sins." Matt. 1 : 2. " Jesus came into the world 
to save sinners." 1 Tim. 1: 15. This w T as the 
object of his coming into the world, and he will not 
come again on the same mission. When he comes 
again he will come for another purpose. " Unto them 
that look for him shall he appear the second time, 
without sin, unto salvation." Heb. 9 : 28. 

The last commands Jesus gave with a promise 
appended were, "Go ye into all the world, preach the 
glad tidings to every creature. He that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved.'' This promise, shall be 
saved, was the culminating point of his earthly mis- 
sion, and having delivered these instructions to his 
ministry he took his leave of them. " So then, after 
the Lord had spoken unto them he was received up 
into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And 
they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord 
working with them, and confirming the word with 
signs following." He confirmed the word. All the 
facts, all the commands, and all the promises they 
preached. They understood their commission and 
were faithful to their trust, else the confirmation 
would have been withheld. No other gospel, no 
deranged gospel, no interpolated gospel, no supple- 
mental gospel has had the seal of Jesus Christ's con- 
firmation, the figment of apostolic succession notwith- 
standing. Let him that says yea produce the testi- 
mony. 

Commissions are brief but comprehensive docu- 
ments. They define what may be done and what 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 109 

may not be done within certain limits. For the 
details we must look to the execution, as there is 
much implied that could not be expressed. The 
liberty granted to the commissioned party is in regard 
to what is necessarily implied in the specified duty. 
Namely, in Mark 16 : 15, 16, hearing is implied 
before believing, and repenting is implied before bap- 
tizing. No man can believe the gospel unless he 
hears it. But he may hear it and not believe it. 
No man can repent unless he believes the gospel. 
And no man can be baptized unless he first repents. 
Preaching, believing, baptizing are expressed, but 
hearing and repenting are implied, and are in the 
commission as legitimate implications. Baptism with 
the promise appended, shall be saved, implies all 
these, but all these do not imply baptism ; therefore 
baptism is the last specification in the commission, 
and the last in the execution, as we shall see by a 
reference 1o the Acts of Apostles. 

We have been thus particular in our remarks on 
the last instructions Jesus gave to his apostles. 
These instructions were wholly directive, both in form 
and in meaning. In these instructions we have the 
origin of baptism. We use the word baptism with- 
out an adjective as it is used in the Scriptures. We 
do not say Christian baptism, etc., as though there 
was another baptism. This and every qualification 
is unauthorized and bewildering. In the last chap- 
ter of Matthew and in the last chapter of Mark we 
have the origin of baptism, and in the book of Acts 
we have its application to unconverted Jews and 
Gentiles, and in the epistles of the apostles to the 
churches we have its application to Christian life. 
This is the order of development, and beyond these 



110 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

we have no means of information. Outside of these 
all is darkness and but a mixture of truth and 
error. This shall be the order of our investigation. 
If a botanist would describe a tree he would first 
speak of the trunk, then of the branches, the leaf, 
the blossom, and last of the ripe fruit. So in regard 
to this or any other ordinance. First the origina- 
tion, then its use, its practical application. This we 
cannot know until we have heard the witnesses. 

We have heard Matthew and Mark on the origin. 
These two are the only witnesses on that point. 
And Luke is the only witness on its application to a 
world of sinners, and Paul and Peter are the only 
witnesses as respects the bearings of baptism on 
Christian life — the duties of . the baptized. There 
are then only five witnesses to be heard. This brings 
the subject of investigation within narrow limits. 
And if we cannot gather from these infallible sources 
of information what baptism is, and why it is, and 
who are interested in it so far as finite minds can 
comprehend all the disposing motives of the infinite, 
we may as well give it up as lost — as one of Christ's 
appointments against which " the gates of hell have 
prevailed/' 

We are dependent on Luke's second treatise for 
all the connecting links between Jesus Christ and 
his apostles from his ascension to heaven until Paul 
became a prisoner in Rome, about A. D. 64. From 
him only can we learn the full import of that last 
commission by which Christ sent his gospel to the 
nations. It was eminently proper that Luke or some 
one not an apostle should write the history of the 
apostles as Christ's appointed agents, acting under 
his instructions. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. Ill 

But to furnish this history turned up a very seri- 
ous emergency. For there must be nothing local or 
sectional in this history. It must not be addressed 
to the people of any one nationality. Not to Jews 
nor Gentiles ; not to the world, or the church ; but 
to an individual whose nationality and religious char- 
acter and preferences must be concealed. It must 
be addressed to a man that would represent every 
other man; a man that would be a fair type of 
humanity. At the same time he must be a man that 
would be interested in the future fortunes of the cause 
of Jesus the Nazarene. All we know, and all that 
is said about Theophilus is, he is twice named by 
Luke. Once in the first and once in the second 
treatise. In the first, Luke addressed him as " most 
excellent Theophilus." 

The address of the second treatise reads, " The 
former treatise have I made, Theophilus, of all 
that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until 
the day in which he was taken up, after that he 
through the Holy Ghost had given commandments 
unto the apostles whom he had chosen : to whom 
also he showed himself alive after his passion by 
many infallible proofs/' etc. 

Luke closed his former treatise by saying to his 
friend Theophilus, " And he led them out as far as 
to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed 
them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, 
he was parted from them, and carried up into 
heaven." 

In this biographical sketch Theophilus was inform- 
ed of the claims and pretensions of this wonderful 
personage. That he came to subvert all the relig- 
ions of the world by introducing a new religion, in 



112 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

which all nations might be united, and Jews and 
Gentiles would become one. But his departure had 
anticipated all these results. His own nation had 
rejected and crucified him, and at the time of his 
departure he had but few adherents, and religiously 
the world remained as it was. 

If the pretensions of him who was the subject of 
the first treatise were ever justified it must have been 
after he had left the world. Luke informed his 
friend that Jesus had made provision for this by 
giving " commandments to his apostles whom he had 
chosen ;" that his dying and rising from the dead 
were a necessity, that repentance and remission of 
sins should be preached in his name, among all na- 
tions, beginning at Jerusalem, and the apostles whom 
he had chosen were his appointed witnesses. 

In saying this much to Theophilus, Luke incurred 
the responsibility of fuller information of after results. 
The curiosity of Theophilus would be greatly excited. 
Many questions would arise. How did the witnesses 
succeed ? Did they convince a respectable number 
among the nations that Jesus did arise from the 
dead ? Did they persuade them to repent and 
accept remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ ? 
Did the apostles begin at Jerusalem ? What was 
the effect of their preaching to Jews of that city who 
had but shortly before crucified this Jesus ? Were 
the apostles endued with power from on high ? Was 
there any accompanying supernaturalism when they 
gave testimony to the resurrection and ascension of 
the Crucified One ? What was the result of their 
advocacy ? All these questions would arise in the 
mind of Theophilus, and every other mind, and just 
as he would be affected, so every other man would be 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 113 

affected who knew the antecedents of Jesus Christ. 
Luke having put himself into communication with 
Theophilus, he could not without great disrespect 
withhold a second treatise. 

A report of the future was due to his most excel- 
lent Theophilus. It was due to Jesus Christ and to 
the apostles. Luke's relation to all these parties was 
only that of a reporter. But let it be borne in mind 
that Luke made his reports to an individual. One 
who could not be suspected for collusion ; one 
against whom there could be no religious or national 
prejudice. By the first treatise Theophilus was pre- 
pared for the second. There was a wisdom in this 
address and preparation that can only be accounted 
for on the ground of a directive providence. 

We shall now proceed to examine Luke's reports 
with reference to baptism, and what he says about 
it subject to the main design of his writing, namely, 
to report the successes and failures of the apostles in 
establishing the claims of Jesus Christ in the differ- 
ent localities where the apostles preached the gospel, 
for we are strongly impressed with the conviction 
that Luke never made mention of baptism for its own 
sake. The apostles did this, but Luke did not, as 
that would not have been consistent with the design 
of his writing or the person addressed. 

1. This first report of the ordinance of baptism is 
in the second of Acts. He speaks of the scenes of 
Pentecost, and the effect of the preaching on a part 
of the multitude. " Now when they heard this they 
were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and 
the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall 
we do ? Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
8 



114 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost." * * « And with 
many other words did he testify and exhort saying, 
Save yourselves from this untoward generation.' ' 
This is the close of Peter's speech. Now Luke 
speaks ; " Then they that gladly received his word 
were baptized ; and the same day there were added 
unto them about three thousand souls.'' This was 
reporting results. What was there in the words of 
Peter that would be cause of gladness ? Was this 
cause of gladness : " Ye have taken and with wicked 
hands have crucified and slain ?" Was the command 
repent, or the command be baptized, cause of joy- 
fulness ? Experience says this much of the apostle's 
words would be cause of sadness rather than gladness. 
In the promise u for the remission of sins," and the 
gift of the Holy Spirit, was the cause, and the only 
cause of gladness. It was the tender of remission of 
sins that gave to every fact and every command the 
quality of gladness. What they heard filled their 
hearts with sorrow, " they were pricked in their 
hearts," and the command " repent," could not have 
removed their sorrow, but a be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins," would give a very sudden turn to their grief. 
The effect would have been the same if remission of 
sins had followed repentance, for the glad-making 
power was not in repentance, nor in baptism, but in 
the promise of remission of sins, immediately con- 
nected with baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, 
and more remotely connected with the command 
repent. 

But why did Luke say, u Then they that gladly 
received his word were baptized ?" He did not say 



B 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 115 

this to Theophilus as a preacher, but as a reporter. 
It was not instruction to Theophilus, but it was 
information to him. When Peter said to the inqui- 
rers, "be baptized,'' he spoke as an apostle, he said 
it for instruction. Luke said this to his friend to 
inform him of the actual results of Pentecost. There 
was nothing in the preceding part of the report from 
which Theophilus could even have inferred that there 
were any converts made to Christ. They being 
pricked in their heart would be no evidence. For 
sinners sometimes have strong emotions, under 
earnest preaching, which soon pass away without any 
practical results. He could not have inferred from 
the question "what shall we do ?" whether any had 
accepted the new Crowned Prince as Lord and 
Christ. For sinners, under the influence of pungent 
convictions, do often appeal to their preachers for 
instructions, and never comply with them. There is 
no evidence before the 41st verse, that so much as 
one Jew accepted the new faith and profession, but 
when Theophilus came to this, " Then they that 
gladly received his word were baptized: and the 
same day there were added unto them about three 
thousand souls," he knew the results of the day. 

There are then but two questions that can be raised. 
1. Did Luke make a faithful report ? And, 2, what 
impression would it make on the mind of Theophi- 
lus in regard to baptism — its relation to the remission 
of sins ? Would he have understood from this 
report that remission of sins was before and inde- 
pendent of baptism ? How would he have under- 
stood this part of the report : " Then Peter said 
unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of 
you,, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 



116 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

sins?" The question is not how do we understand 
it whose minds have been steeped in this baptismal 
strife, whose judgments are warped with party inter- 
ests. " Then they that gladly received his word were 
baptized." Would he not have understood that they 
were baptized, from the only happifying motive, the 
promised " remission of sins and the gift of the 

Spirit r 

Luke had to select one word by which he would 
indicate to his friend the success of the apostles in 
their advocacy of Christ and his cause among the 
nations, beginning at Jerusalem. To have given the 
same full details of their preaching and results would 
have given a dull monotony to his narrative, and 
would have been a reflection on the intelligence of 
Theophilus. That word must be selected both from 
the apostolic commission and their preaching. More- 
over it must be sufficiently comprehensive to em- 
brace all that is implied in the process of saving 
sinners in the sense of remission of sins. There is 
but one word in the gospel that is sufficiently generic 
to do this. The word believed, without some accom- 
panying terms, cannot do this, neither can the word 
repented. These words are too specific to embrace 
the whole without some additional terms. There is 
but one word that would have answered this purpose, 
and that is the word selected by Luke. It is the last 
imperative word in the commission, and it is the last 
imperative word in the apostolic preaching. It is the 
word baptized. Jesus said he that believe«th and is 
baptized shall be saved, and Peter said repent and be 
baptized for the remission of sins, and Luke said 
they that gladly received his word were baptized. 
This was the chosen word by which Luke expressed 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 117 

final results, when he alluded to the ordinance at all. 
According to his chosen style, baptized comprehended 
all the mental conditions, as faith, repentance, change 
of purpose, new aims of life, affections, and a desire 
to be saved. Every prerequisite he comprehended in 
the word baptized, and so he would be understood by 
his friend when he read his reports. When Luke 
informed him that they were baptized in Jerusalem, 
in | Samaria, in Cesarea, or any other place, he knew 
that the apostles w T ere successful in making converts 
to Jesus Christ. A desire to know how the Christ 
was received by Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles, was 
begotten in the heart of Theophilus by Luke's first 
treatise, and he never loses sight of this in the second. 
From this we learn that none but the baptized 
accepted Christ, and all the unbaptized rejected 
Christ. He adopted the same style in his first trea- 
tise. " And all the people that heard him, and the 
publicans, justified God, being baptized with the 
baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers 
rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being 
not baptized of him." Being baptized was justify- 
ing (honoring) God. Being not baptized was reject- 
ing the counsel of God against themselves. (See 
my remarks on this under the head John's baptism.) 
This lets us fairly into the style of the inspired 
Luke on this subject, when reporting the preacher, 
the people preached to, and the immediate results 
that followed. 

2d report. " Then Philip went down to the city 
of Samaria and preached Christ unto them. And 
the people, with one accord, gave heed unto those 
things which Philip spake. But when they believed 
Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom 



118 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEESY. 

of God and the name of Jesus, they were baptized, 
both men and women.'' Acts 8 : 5, 6, 12. This 
report is greatly abbreviated. Without previous 
instruction it would have been unintelligible to The- 
ophilus. Luke must have taken into account the 
amount of information he had on " preaching Christ," 
" the kingdom of God,'' "the name of Jesus," and 
" baptism." Having read Luke's first treatise, and 
the second thus far, he would understand all these 
terms and phrases ; for of Pentecost he had a full 
detail of all that is stated here. He would know 
from the first report what was comprehended in 
" preaching Christ," "believing," and being " bap- 
tized." " Then Simon himself believed also, and 
when he was baptized." Luke knew that Theophi- 
lus would supply what was wanting in formal state- 
ment, therefore, he said nothing about the resurrec- 
tion, ascension, repentance, the remission of sins, or 
the gift of the Spirit, but in a summary way said, 
"and preached Christ unto them/' and then reported 
the results of Philip's preaching in the city of Sama- 
ria, " they were baptized, both men and women." 
If Luke had said to his friend, they believed Philip, 
both men and women, this would have left the success 
of Philip's effort in the dark, for then the men and 
women who believed might, like Joseph of Arima- 
thea, or the chief rulers, have declined, through fear 
or shame, to commit themselves to Christ. But the 
report, as it is, u they were baptized both and men 
women," was no uncertain sound. They were open, 
avowed, finished converts to Christ. According to 
this report these men and women were not converted 
to "Christ" by some instantaneous, inexplicable 
power, but by a process adapted and addressed to 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 119 

the laws of mind and heart. Baptism in the days of 
inspired preachers, whether evangelists or apostles, 
was an integral part of the converting, saving 
process. " They were baptized, both men and 
women." This would have been a convenient place 
to have added, and children. There can be but one 
reason given why these two words were not added. 

3d report. u Then Philip began at that Scripture, 
(53d chapter of Isaiah), and preached unto him Jesus. 
And as they went on their way,* they came unto a 
certain water ; and the eunuch said, See, here is 
water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And 
Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou 
mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that 
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded 
the chariot to stand still ; and they went down both 
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he 
baptized him." 

In this report there is also much implied. " And 
preached unto him Jesus." There is a long elipsis 
between this and the eunuch's question, " What doth 
hinder me to be baptized ?" A faithful report must 
correspond with the preaching. Must express or 
comprehend all that is implied in preaching " Jesus." 
If Theophilus could not supply what was omitted, he 
was misled, for the want of more full information. 
Let it be borne in mind that Luke was not preaching 
but reporting to an individual who had been 
instructed " of all that Jesus began both to do and 
teach, until the day he was taken up," and having 
read a full report of the first public advocacy and its 
results, i. e., that three thousand " gladly received 
the word of the apostles and were baptized," he 
would understand what was meant by the remark, 



120 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEKSY. 

" preached unto him Jesus," and how the eunuch 
came by his knowledge of baptism, and the disposing 
motive that prompted the question, " What hinders 
me to be baptized ?" The design of the writer being 
to inform rather than instruct, he would mention that 
which was common in all cases of conversion with ' 
great brevity — only so much as would be necessary 
to keep up the order of narrative, but what was new 
and peculiar in any given case he would state in 
more full detail. 

To illustrate this discrimination between the ordi- 
nary and the extraordinary, let us make an example 
of the present case, a case that has no parallel and 
never will have in all its circumstantials. 1. It was 
a special mission to a wayfaring man. u And the 
angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, 
and go toward the south." u And he arose and went ; 
and behold a man of Ethiopia * * had come to 
Jerusalem to worship." 2. "Was returning, and 
sitting in his chariot, read Esaias the prophet." 3. 
" Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join 
thyself to this chariot." 4. " Then Philip ran 
thither to him, and heard him read the prophet 
Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou 
readest ?" 5. " How can I except some man should 
guide me ? And he desired Philip that he would 
come up and sit with him." 6. The Scripture read 
by the "treasurer," suggested the text. There is 
not a prophecy in which Jesus, Saviour, and salva- 
tion are set forth with so much clearness and empha- 
sis. " The chastisement of our peace was upon him, 
and with his stripes we are healed." " The Lord 
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." " By their 
knowledge of him shall my righteous servant justify 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 121 

many, for their iniquities he shall have borne.' ' 
u He bare the sin of many, and made intercession 
for the transgressors.' ' 

In preaching Jesus from this prophecy Philip 
would show that it was speaking of Jesus and not 
" of another man.'' That the prediction had its full 
and literal accomplishment in Jesus. This would 
lead him to speak of his sin-offering and the terms of 
salvation with which the eunuch was ready to comply 
— what hinders me to be baptized ? We may assume 
that Philip preached baptism to the eunuch. Bap- 
tism in its relation to Jesus, as commanded by him 
was as a means to some end. That end must have been 
salvation in some sense as indicated by the name 
Jesus — and preached unto Mm Jesus. This preach- 
ing Jesus and baptizing the believer was common to 
all cases of conversion. So was going down into the 
water and coming up out of the water common to 
every case of baptizing. Why then did Luke state 
this case so circumstantially ? Was it for the sake 
of mode ? Was it to explain to Theophilus how bap- 
tism was administered ? Or was it for some other 
purpose ? Not one of the New Testament writers 
said one word for the sake of the mode of baptism. 
When they said anything involving the mode it was 
incidental and for the sake of another thought — so 
in this report. Both Philip and the eunuch going 
"down " and coming "up " was for the sake of an- 
other fact, i. 6., the separation of the parties. "And 
when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit 
of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch 
saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoic- 
ing." But for this extraordinary event connected 
with this case, there could have been no occasion for 



122 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Luke to say they went down into the water, and 
when they were come up out of the water. The 
mode is directly involved in this statement, but that 
was clearly not in the mind of the writer, it was as 
foreign to the motive of the statement as house- 
building. The place of baptizing and the separation 
of the baptizer and the baptized are not the baptism, 
but accompanying facts. It was for the sake of the 
peculiar and miraculous separation and the time of 
the separation, the reporter said — " and the Spirit of 
the Lord caught away," etc. And this suggests an- 
other thought, namely, that the object of Philip's 
mission was accomplished when he had baptized the 
eunuch. His work was not done when the man of 
Ethiopia professed his faith in Jesus, when he said, 
" I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 
But when " he had baptized him '' the entire process 
of conversion was gone through with, and so sudden- 
ly was the preacher taken away that the saved man 
(" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,") 
saw him no more, but " went on his way" homeward 
" rejoicing." 

When the objects for which parties are brought 
into communication or co-operation are accomplished 
they separate. There was nothing extraordinary in 
this case of conversion, but in the way the parties 
were brought together, and in the way they were 
separated are the differentials. 

That so plain a case, and one of so much practical 
importance should have lost all its primitive signifi- 
cance by being tortured into a debate about mode 
makes the heart sad. 

4th report. In this we have the calling of the 
Gentiles, and in this we shall find a series of new cir- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 123 

cumstances peculiar to this case, as well as that which 
was common to every case of conversion, whether the 
people of a city, as Samaria, or to a wayfaring man, 
as the Ethiopian eunuch. 

Peter stated in substance the same facts, com- 
mands, and promises he preached to the Jews on 
Pentecost. On the first occasion he answered the 
question, "What shall we do?" This would vary the 
style of address ; and what he stated last at Jerusa- 
lem he stated first at Cesarea. The last thing then 
was the Lordship of Jesus. God hath made him both 
Lord and Christ. But here he said first, " The 
word which God sent unto the children of Israel, 
preaching peace by Jesus Christ : he is Lord of all." 
There was something most apposite in this introduc- 
tion — " preaching peace by Jesus Christ : he is Lord 
of all :" God commands the peace — the nations to be 
at peace, by Jesus Christ, whom he has constituted 
Lord of all — Lord of the Jews, and Lord of the Gen- 
tiles. 

The apostle then appealed to what Cornelius knew 
of Christ. It is not a supposable case that such a 
man as the centurian, living in a city of Palestine, 
would be ignorant of Jesus of Nazareth. " That 
word, I say, ye know, which was published through- 
out all Judea, and began after the baptism which 
John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Naza- 
reth," etc. All the facts stated in the discourse 
come under that appeal, " ye know." When Peter 
stated the last sentence, " To him give all the proph- 
ets witness, that through his name whosoever (Jew 
or Gentile) believeth in him shall receive remission 
of sins/' he was interrupted by the descent of the 
Spirit. " While Peter yet spake these words, the 



124 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." 
This manifestation of the Holy Ghost was the extra- 
ordinary in the case, aside from the mere circum- 
stantials, which had no bearing upon the saving pro- 
cess. Luke reports this as a falling of the Spirit, as 
a pouring out of the Spirit — a figure which means 
copiousness. In Peter's defense, chapter 11, verse 
16, he gives his own words, " Then remembered 
I the word of the Lord ; how that he said, John in- 
deed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost." Jesus spoke these words to 
the eleven before Pentecost, before the kingdom was 
opened to the Jews. This baptism was the first 
event on Pentecost. The promise, " but ye shall be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence/' 
was fulfilled before a single Jew or any man under 
heaven was baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
The coincidence in this is very striking, for the Gen- 
tiles were baptized with the Holy Ghost before they 
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. What 
Luke calls " fell on,'' " poured out," Peter calls 
" baptized with the Holy Ghost." These are differ- 
ent statements of the same fact. Here then are two 
baptisms. The first was uncommanded, unlooked 
for, and without a promise of any gospel blessing 
appended. This baptism was administered by Jesus 
Christ himself — in person. The second was com- 
manded to the subjects of the first. It was a bap- 
tism with water, in the name of the Lord, adminis- 
tered by human hands. It is important that we 
understand the relation between these two baptisms, 
if we do not we shall understand neither. The rela- 
tion is not that of better and best — essential and 
most essential, for then the odds would be in favor of 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 125 

the last, the water over the Spirit. Neither is it that 
the first superceded the second, for it did not. The 
question with us is not how is the relation between 
these two concurring and almost simultaneous bap- 
tisms understood at present, for here theology has 
committed some of the most fatal neek-break blun- 
ders. But how was this relation understood by the 
interested parties at that time. For the calling of 
the Gentiles into the fellowship of the gospel was not 
a question of personal or sectional, but of national 
interest. The time had now come for the settlement 
of this great question, " Is God the God of the Jews 
only ?" And upon the results of this occasion rest- 
ed this long standing and tremendous issue, in which 
the salvation of the Gentile world then and forever 
was involved. 

What then may we gather from the scope of the 
narrative as to the meaning and bearings of the bap- 
tism with the Holy Spirit as respected Gentile 
rights ? How was it understood by Peter and the 
believing Jews then present and them of Jerusa- 
lem ? These questions can be answered only by an 
appeal to the narrative. Luke's report to Theophi- 
lus is all the data we have. There is no other wit- 
ness. All others are mere pretenders and have 
climbed up some other way ; their opinions cannot 
be accepted as testimony, for they neither saw nor 
heard the things reported. 

" While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy 
Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And 
they of the circumcision which believed were aston- 
ished, as many as came with Peter, because that on 
the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues 



126 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

and magnify God." On this Peter based an appeal to 
the brethren, which came with him from Joppa. 
This appeal will show the apostle's understanding of 
the "gift" bestowed upon the believing Gentiles. 
If he had understood that this "gift 9} had inducted 
the Gentiles into the kingdom of God and all its 
blessings, his appeal would have been " can any 
man " command "water " that these should " be bap- 
tized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as 
we?" This form of the appeal would have settled 
the question on the affirmative, L e., that the Gentiles 
were now fully enfranchized and that nothing more 
was to be done to entitle them to equal recognition. 
But his appeal is negative in form, " can any man 
forbid water that these should not be baptized which 
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" 
There being no protest he " commanded them to be 
baptized in the name of the Lord." By the baptism 
of the Holy Spirit the rights of the Gentiles were 
asserted — demonstrated — and by the baptism with 
water in the name of the Lord, their God-given rights 
were recognized and formally conferred upon them. 
" And he commanded them to be baptized in the 
name of the Lord." 

The apostles and brethren in Judea thought this 
to be a great impropriety on the part of Peter. "And 
when he came to Jerusalem they contended with him, 
saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and 
didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the mat- 
ter from the beginning ;" but did not reach the point 
of decision, until he said, " And as I began to speak 
the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the begin- 
ning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how 
that he said, John indeed baptized with water ; but- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 127 

ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Foras- 
much then as God gave them the like gift as he gave 
unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what 
was I that I could withstand God ? When they 
heard these things they held their peace, and glorifi- 
ed God, saying, u Then hath God also unto the Gen- 
tiles granted repentance unto life." 

The baptism with the Holy Spirit was Peter's 
defense and the ground of his justification for com- 
manding Cornelius and his believing household to be 
baptized with water. But for this he would have 
withstood God, and but for this the other apostles 
and brethren would not have withdrawn their cen- 
sure from Peter, neither would they have said exult- 
ingly, " Then hath God also unto the Gentiles grant- 
ed repentance unto life." 

The relation therefore of the two baptisms then 
and there was, on the part of God, an assenter of 
rights, and on the part of Peter and the other apos- 
tles and brethren, an acknowledgement of rights. 
We do not now raise the question whether the bap- 
tism with the Holy Ghost belongs to the ordinary or 
the extraordinary ; whether it has been continued 
or whether it ceased after the calling of the Gentiles; 
but this we confidently affirm, that there has been 
no baptism since, for the same object. For the king- 
dom of God having been once opened to the Gentiles, 
and their right of entrance having been attested by 
divine supernatural intervention, and this right hav- 
ing been conceded by that apostle to whom Jesus 
gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and all the 
other apostles and brethren, the baptism with the 
Holy Spirit could not be repeated for the same 
object. For what was done at Cesarea could never 



128 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

be done again, as the reason could never exist again. 
The prime object was not personal but national ; not 
the conversion and salvation of Cornelius and his 
household, but to open the door of faith to all Gen- 
tiles, and bring the " far off" into the fellowship of 
the gospel through Christ. 

The character of the man Cornelius will throw 
some light upon the subject. God wanted a man for 
a special use, and he elected Cornelius to the highest 
honors ever bestowed upon a Gentile. The time had 
come to form a religious connection between the two 
great nationalities of the world. The connecting 
link could not be a Jew nor a proselyte, but a full- 
blooded, uncircumcised Gentile. Moreover he must 
not be a degraded, profligate idolater ; but a pure, 
pious, God-fearing Gentile, worthy of the honor. Cor- 
nelius, in his social position, was a military officer. 
Luke says he was a " devout man, and one that 
feared God with all his house, and prayed to God 
always. ' 9 And the angel " said unto him, Thy pray- 
ers and thine alms are come up as a memorial before 
God." And Peter said to him, " Of a truth, I per- 
ceive that God is no respecter of persons ; but in 
every nation, he that feareth him and worketh right- 
eousness is acceptable with him." The character of 
Cornelius and his household brought them within the 
specification of the prophecy of Joel : " And on my 
servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in 
those days of my Spirit and they shall prophesy." 
Acts 2 ; 18. In the preceding verse we have the 
words u all flesh." All flesh may be an implied lim- 
itation, for it is less comprehensive than the phrase 
" every creature/' in the commission — " preach the 
gospel to every creature." But the phrase "my 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 129 

servants and handmaidens 9} is a great limitation, 
restricting this out-pouring of the Spirit to such only, 
and excluding all that were not servants and hand- 
maidens. Cornelius was accepted with God, he was 
a divinely-recognized servant of God, and with his 
other blood qualifications brought him within the 
limitations of this out-pouring Spirit baptism, and 
this made him the worthy connecting link between 
the Jews and the Gentiles — the honored representa- 
tive of this great overshadowing national unity, for- 
mally consummated by being baptized with water in 
the name of the Lord. Cornelius, like Abimelech 
and Jethro, and perhaps many other pure-hearted 
Gentiles, was of the " other sheep," not of the cir- 
cumcised Jewish fold. " And other sheep have I 
which are not of this fold ; them also I must bring, 
and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one 
fold, and one shepherd." John 10 : 16. What more 
could be wanting than the character and acceptance 
with God, as before stated. When the angel bade 
him u send for Simon Peter," "he shall tell thee 
what thou oughtest to do/' might not Cornelius, with 
ev;en more propriety, have said to the angel, what the 
young man said to Jesus, " What lack I yet ?" This 
angelic admonition implied that there was more for 
him to do. Something he had not yet done. The 
messengers sent to Peter said, " Cornelius * * ** 
was warned by a holy angel to send for thee to hear 
words of thee.' ; Peter, in his defense, states it thus : 
" Send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose 
surname is Peter : who shall tell thee words whereby 
thou and all thy house shall be saved." From this 
we learn that as a Gentile he needed nothing more 
to commend him to the divine favor, but in the gospel 
9 



130 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

sense he was still an unforgiven, an unsaved man. 
This is fully confirmed by the last words of the apos- 
tle, before the Spirit was poured out : " To him give 
all the prophets witness, that through his name who- 
soever believeth in him shall receive remission of 
sins.'' When Peter had enunciated these words, the 
Spirit baptism occurred and confirmed the truth of 
that new and extraordinary proposition and its imme- 
diate application to a Gentile audience. Up to this 
time Cornelius had not " received remission of sins," 
" through the name of Christ.'' Neither did he 
receive remission of sins through his Spirit baptism ; 
for his being baptized with the Holy Spirit was not 
in his instructions to send for Peter,nor yet in Peter's 
sermon : " The angel said to Cornelius, Send for 
Peter, who shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do." 
Peter did not command him to be baptized with the 
Holy Spirit. This baptism could not be commanded, 
for the subject was always passive, not knowing the 
day nor the hour when it would occur, if at all. As 
it could not be anticipated, it was therefore out of 
all human action. It was something erratic, irregu- 
lar, like all miraculous phenomena, which could 
neither be commanded nor obeyed. It did not then 
meet the specific instruction, " Who shall tell thee 
what thou oughtest to do " — " Who shall tell thee 
words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." 
But again, " through his name whosoever believeth 
in him shall receive remission of sins." The Spirit 
baptism was by Christ, therefore not in his name. 
No personal official act is performed in the name of 
the actor, for he personally represents himself. Re- 
mission of sins was not through Spirit baptism, for 
that was not in the name of Christ. Moreover 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 131 

remission of sins is not associated with Spirit baptism 
by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, or the prophecy of 
Joel. " But ye shall be endowed with power from 
on high,'' " My servants and my handmaidens shall 
prophesy," were among its promises and immediate 
results. Cornelius was baptized with the Spirit, 
while he was yet a Gentile ; for if he had been bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord, his Spirit baptism 
would have been no guarantee of Gentile rights, 
namely,that the Gentiles had a divine right to receive 
remission of sins through the name of Christ. Up 
to that time there was nothing demonstrative of Gen- 
tile salvation through the gospel. There was nothing 
distinctive in his character that would entitle him to 
the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Neither his 
devotion, his praying, his alms-giving, or his personal 
righteousness, could be the predicate of personal 
salvation, of remission of sins through the name 
of the Lord. And if Peter had not commanded him 
to be baptized in the name of the Lord, he would 
have continued to be a Gentile, without the remission 
of sins and the knowledge of salvation. It was not 
his Spirit baptism, but his baptism with water in the 
name of the Lord, that brought him under the Medi- 
ator of the new covenant, and all covenanted mercies. 
" For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and 
their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.'' 
From this time every Gentile had an undisputed right 
to come into the new covenant, and enjoy every cov- 
enanted blessing on covenanted stipulations. With- 
out antecedent Spirit baptism, this right has not been 
disputed by Jews or Gentiles, but it was disputed by 
all the Christian Jews before that out-pouring of the 
Spirit at Cesarea. When the apostles and brethren 



132 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY, 

at Jerusalem heard these things, they exclained : 
" Then hath God also unto the Gentiles granted 
repentance unto life." 

These extraordinary means secured an extraordi- 
nary end, and prepared the way for the ordinary and 
common in all cases of personal salvation. " And 
he commanded them to be baptized in the name of 
the Lord." This was the formal induction of both 
Jews and Gentiles, and evermore will be, until the 
Lord shall countermand this and appoint another. 

" To him give all the prophets witness, that 
through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall 
receive remission of sins." This is not a quotation, 
it is a summarized statement of what all the prophets 
have witnessed of remission of sins through the name 
of Jesus Christ. In a national sense remission of 
sins is unlimited, but in an individual sense remission 
of sins is restricted to the believer and received 
through the name of the Lord. 

S On account of our baptismal strife, the primitive 
place and significance of the name of the Lord is 
very nearly lost. This must be restored to its place 
and meaning before the New Testament teachings on 
the subject of remission of sins can be understood, 
and this first, great, inductive gospel blessing be 
enjoyed. The apostle said to Cornelius, " through 
the name," etc. The preposition " through," in its 
most ordinary senses, is passing from end to end or 
from side to side. It also means a medium of trans- 
mission. Our papers are transmitted through the 
mail. Knowledge is through books, through teach- 
ers, through study, etc. The only natural sense of 
through in this passage, is medium of conveyance, 
transmission. Through cannot mean fo/, in the sense 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 133 

of agency, or with, in the sense of instrumentality : 
" That through his name whosoever believeth in him 
shall receive remission of sins." Not hath remission 
of sins, but shall receive remission of sins. As the 
sequel shows the name associated with a command of 
the Lord : " And he commanded them to be baptized 
in the name of the Lord." The name of the Lord 
is as much a component part of baptism as water or 
an administrator. In the New Testament history of 
the ordinance, the official titles, Jesus, Christ, Lord, 
are intimately connected with the action called bap- 
tism. These are now almost universally omitted in 
the administration. By what authority ? Let us 
illustrate the subject by the ways. of human society. 
There is an inexorable necessity to make names rep- 
resent both persons and official authority. Without 
this we could have neither commerce nor government. 
A written covenant without a name is a blank, but 
when the names of the parties are affixed to it, they 
are bound, held for the performance, whether present 
or absent, living or dead. Men have made fortunes 
and lost fortunes by signing their names to a slip of 
paper. The official signature of a governor or presi- 
dent is his representative of authority, and a 
State or the United States may be held to do or for- 
bear by virtue of a name. 

" Son of God " and " Son of man '* are natural 
designations; expressive of paternity and maternity, 
but Christ, Jesus, Lord, are official titles, the repre- 
sentatives of authority to command obedience and to 
fulfill promises. Jesus Christ appointed no success- 
orship. He has no living, personal representatives 
on earth ; therefore remission of sins is not through 



184 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

a pope or priesthood, but through his own name. 
This is his own ordination. 

" Then opened he their understanding, that they 
might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, 
Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suf- 
fer and to rise again from the dead the third day : 
and that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preafhed in his name, among all nations, beginning 
at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these 
things," etc. Luke 24: 45-48. Here we have the 
official name Christ between the command repent and 
the promise of remission of sins. This chosen rela- 
tion of his name implies his authority to command 
the nations to repent, and a pledge of his ability and 
integrity to bestow, to grant the promised remission 
of sins. After his departure this was the relation of 
his official titles to repentance and remission of sins, 
according to Luke's reports. 

We have before stated that the titles, Jesus, Christ, 
Lord, were a constituent part of baptism. This we 
will prove by an induction. 1. " Repent and be 
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins/' Acts 2 : 38. 2. 
"But when they heard Philip preaching * * the 
name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men 
and women." " For as yet he was fallen upon none 
of them ; only they were baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus." Acts 8: 12, 16. 3. "When they 
heard this, they were baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus." Acts 19: 5. 4. "To him give all 
the prophets witness that through his name whoso- 
ever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 
* * And he commanded them to be baptized in 
the name of the Lord." Acts 10 : 45-48. These 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 135 

cases clearly prove that one or more of the official 
titles were invoked in the act of baptizing, and that 
this was the way the apostles understood their last 
commission, i. e., " And that repentance and remis- 
sion of sins should be preached in his name.'' So 
they preached remission of sins in Jerusalem, in Sa- 
maria, in Cesarea, and " among all nations." 

" Remission of sins through his name/' That 
repentance and remission of sins should be preached 
in his name. Repent and be baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, are proposi- 
tions of the same import, the difference being only 
that the last statement is more full than the first two. 
There is no controversy about remission of sins being 
through or in the name of Christ, when dissociated 
from baptism ; but when associated with baptism, then 
the name of Jesus Christ is not for remission of sins. 
Why this is so we care not now to inquire into, but the 
fact that it is so fills the heart with sadness. Why 
should the less definite statements be accepted and 
the more definite be rejected ? It was needful that 
the name of Christ, the sin-forgiving Christ, should 
have an embodiment. That it would be associated 
with some action, something that could be commanded 
by the authority of Christ ; something that could 
be obeyed by the believing penitent. As we have 
seen, the name was enunciated in the act of baptiz- 
ing. Jesus Christ did not leave the invocation of 
his sacred name in the saving process to the whims 
and caprices of men. He ordained an ordinance, he 
inscribed his name upon it, and said remission of sins 
in my name. He said he that believetfli and is bap- 
tized shall be saved. His apostles understood him. 
They never promised remission of sins only in or 



136 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

through the name of Christ. They gave oral display- 
to the saving name. They said to the sin-sick soul, 
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins. 

That the Son of God is the Christ is the founda- 
tion truth in Christianity, the all-pervading central 
thought, the only basis of our faith, hope, and love. 
It was most appropriate and significant that this 
great fact should have been inscribed upon the first 
act of visible ordinance. That the sinner might 
know that from henceforth the subjection of his con- 
science must be given to Christ, and that to him only 
he must look for salvation ; that his baptism was 
the end of his former sinful state, and the beginning 
of his new, justified state — the beginning of his new 
life. That it was the end of all national distinctions 
and sectionalism. That religiously he was no more 
a Jew or a Gentile, but a child of God, as Paul 
taught the churches in Galatia, by way of remem- 
brance : " For ye are all the children of God by 
faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There 
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor 
free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all 
one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then 
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the 
promise.' ' 

From this report, Theophilus would learn, 1. That 
there was not one gospel for the Jews and another 
for the Gentiles. 2. That the claims of the Gen- 
tiles were attested by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
3. That the church at Jerusalem acknowledged the 
claim of the Gentiles to repentance unto life as a 
God-given right. 4. That God had now verified his 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 137 

promise to Abraham, " In thee shall all nations be 
blessed." All this and more would be news to The- 
ophilus, of more than ordinary interest. 

After the calling of the Gentiles, Luke became the 
companion and reporter for Paul. 

5th report. " And on the Sabbath we went out of 
the city by the river side, where prayer was wont to 
be made ; and we sat down and spake unto the wo- 
men which resorted thither. And a certain woman 
named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thya- 
tira, which worshiped God, heard us ; whose heart 
the Lord opened, that she should attend to the things 
which were spoken of Paul. And when she was bap- 
tized and her household, she besought us, saying, If 
ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come 
into my house and abide there. And she constrained 
us." This was in Philippi, the chief city of that 
part of Macedonia. Paul, Silas, Luke, and Timothy 
came there together. There is nothing in this report 
to show whether this woman was a Jewess or a Gen- 
tile, save that she observed the Sabbath. Being a 
worshiper of God does not determine her nationality, 
for Cornelius, the Gentile, was a worshiper of God. 
But why this ? " Whose heart the Lord opened, that 
she attended the things spoken by Paul ?" Are not 
the hearts of those who worship God always open to 
attend to what God may require? Not always. 
Perhaps this may be a hinderance. The word 
" opened " implies that there was some obstruction 
in her heart which had to be removed before she 
would attend to new duties — before she would accept 
another religion and other forms of worship. Accord- 
ing to her conscientiousness in her present worship 
would her hesitancy to attend to the things spoken 



138 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

by Paul. There are religious as well as sinful hin- 
derances. Let us give a case in fact : 

Mrs. B — n. — " Husband, you believe that baptism 
is immersion ; now is a favorable opportunity, let us 
put our minds to rest on this subject.'' 

Mr. B — n. — " I have been a professor for many 
years, I have led the class for twenty years, God has 
heard and answerd my prayers, and I have been 
baptized with the Holy Ghost ; I have therefore 
gotten past water baptism. If I was now to enter 
upon the profession of religion I would be im- 
mersed." 

We did not doubt the religious integrity of Mr. 
Borelin's reasons for not yielding to the wishes of 
his wife, but we could not " open his heart/ ' We 
could not remove the obstructions that were in his 
heart, and the result was not as at Philippi, himself 
and household were not baptized. 

From this report and the preceding one we learn 
that neither prayers nor alms, working righteous- 
ness, Spirit baptism, morality, nor piety could absolve 
from the duty of baptism. The devoted worshiper 
and the vilest sinner were under the same obligation 
to be baptized in the name of the Lord. " God had 
concluded all under sin that he might ha\e mercy 
upon all." 

There are no specifications as to what the things 
spoken by Paul were. And there is only one thing 
in the report to which Lydia did attend — "And 
when she was baptized/' This, like all the preceding 
reports of conversion, whether brief in statement or 
in more full detail, begin with preaching and end 
with baptism. When, therefore, the report says, 
" And when she was baptized," we are assured that 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 139 

Lydia attended to all the other things that were 
spoken of Paul. 5 

There is yet another fact which is worthy of 
notice, i. e., " If ye have judged me to be faithful to 
the Lord, come into my house and abide there/' 
When the Lord opened Lydia's heart, Lydia opened 
her house, and took in four boarders. And where 
such results do not follow, the conversion is doubtful. 

From this report it is evident that Lydia was either 
a maiden or a widow. She procured her own house, 
created and managed her own business. And her 
household consisted in such helps as were necessary 
to carry on her mercantile operations. During the 
whole time of the sojourn of Paul, Silas, Luke, and 
Timothy, which was " many days," they were fed 
and lodged by Sister Lydia. " And when they went 
out of the prison, and entered into the house of 
Lydia; and had seen the brethren, they comforted 
them and departed." This was a happy farewell, 
pastoral visit; a visit which all the brethren in 
Lydia's household could enjoy. They comforted 
them and departed. 

6th report. "And the keeper of the prison 
awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison 
doors open, he drew out his sword and would have 
killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been 
fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do 
thyself no harm ; for we are all here. Then he call- 
ed for a light and sprang in, and came trembling, 
and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought 
them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they 
spake unto him the word of the Lord and to all that 



140 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

were in his house. And he took them the same hour 
of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was bap- 
tized, he and all his straightway. And when he had 
brought them into his house, he set meat before them 
and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." 

It has been assumed that the jailer's question, 
what shall I do to be saved ? is not to be understood 
in the sense of saved from sin, but in the sense of 
saved from the penalty of the Roman law for letting 
the prisoners escape. But the keeper of the prison 
was informed that there was no cause for apprehen- 
sion from that quarter. " Do thyself no harm." 
This is the command of Christ to every sinner in 
every emergency, "Do thyself no harm;" for we 
are all here. But even if he had not been informed 
that the prisoners were in their place, the objection 
would not be well taken. For it cannot be supposed 
that the jailer was ignorant of that new religion so 
rapidly spreading among the Gentiles, whose great 
thought was salvation from sin. Cesarea and Phil- 
ippi were both military posts. Between these places 
there would be a constant intercommunity. That 
the jailer had heard of the conversion of the centuri- 
on cannot be doubted. Again that he had heard of 
the conversion of a merchant woman and her house- 
hold in his own city, cannot be doubted. And again, 
that maiden street- cry er, "These men are the servants 
of the most high God, which show unto us the way 
of salvation,'' had called the attention of the city to 
Paul and Silas. " These men do exceedingly trouble 
our city," said the owners of the diviner, when the 
hopes of their gains were gone. The jailer knew 
that Paul and Silas were not arrested for any u wick- 
ed lewdness," not for any treasonable or seditious 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 141 

conduct. He knew that they were delivered into his 
custody with the charge to " keep them safely/' for 
no other offense than for casting out a spirit of divina- 
tion. For the "masters of the damsel" (a female slave) 
had excited the "multitude" and the magistrates 
commanded to beat them, and they were beaten with 
many stripes. All this was " done openly and un- 
condemned/' said Paul. From all these facts we 
may assume that the jailer had some general knowl- 
edge of the object of the apostles' mission to their 
city. That they were preaching salvation through 
him whom the Jews had crucified. He may have 
smiled at the novelty. He may have derided the new 
superstition, but it is easier to suppose that he knew 
enough to beget in his heart a desire to be saved than 
to suppose him to have been ignorant of the greatest 
and most exciting question of the times. 

Sinners often make light of salvation under one set 
of circumstances, while under another, without any 
additional information, they are very deeply impress- 
ed. The jailer's conscience needed a quickening. 
The Lord knew how to do it, and he did it, and ex- 
torted from him the question, Sirs, what must I do 
to be saved ? There was a felt need in his soul for 
salvation before the earthquake, for a physical mira- 
cle could not have begotten in his heart a desire for 
something he had not entertained before. The 
shaking of the prison was to him like the near ap- 
proach of death to a sinner ; it made him honest, and 
directed to him to seek counsel from those he had 
before supposed could direct him on this momentous 
question, " what must I do to be saved ? " 

Paul understood the motive of his question and 
gave him a direct answer. Believe on the Lord 



142 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house. 
A felt need for salvation — for something we have not, 
for something the world cannot give, may exist in 
the heart of an unbeliever. If it cannot, the preach- 
ing of the gospel would be vain. Paul knew that the 
jailer's knowledge of the gospel ^as inadequate to 
enable him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. 
" And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, 
and to all that were in his house. The question was 
"what must I do to be saved?" Up to this time 
the jailer and his house were only passive hearers. 
They were receivers and not doers. They were in- 
structed in the object of belief, and the ground of 
evidence on which their belief must be founded, but 
they had not yet come to the point in the question, 
" what must I do to be saved ? " The first thing the 
jailor did was to wash their stripes. That was no 
part of the word of the Lord. The second thing is 
stated thus : u And was baptized, he and all his, 
straightway.' ' This was a part of the word of the 
Lord spoken to him and his house. Their baptism 
was the last thing involved in the question, " what 
must I do to be saved." The jailer, bringing Paul 
and Silas into his house after his baptism, setting 
meat before them, rejoicing, believing in God with 
all his house, are mere incidents in the peculiarities 
of the case. They belong to the narrative and not 
to the word of the Lord. These, like the earthquake, 
are some of the circumstantials of this case of con- 
version, and no part of the word of the Lord. The 
question was after the shaking of the prison, and the 
answer was given and complied with when the querist 
and his were baptized. 

This, like every other report of conversion, began 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 143 

with preaching the word of the Lord, and ended with 
baptism, whether the persons preached to were unbe- 
lievers or believers, worshipers of God or worshipers 
of idols, but all that belongs to the word of the Lord, 
all that lies between the beginning and the end, is 
implied. If Luke had made every report to a differ- 
ent person he would have left nothing to implication. 
He would have given every report in the same full 
detail as the first from Jerusalem. Therefore the 
controversy about being saved by believing alone, or 
by baptism alone, as in the case of infant baptism, is 
both foolish and sinful, for the word of the Lord 
comprehends immeasurably more than faith or bap- 
tism, or faith and baptism, for the two conjoined are 
but an abstract of the whole — of all the facts, com- 
mands, and promises of the word of the Lord — the 
gospel of salvation. Now let every advocate of sal- 
vation by faith alone, or baptism alone, or spirit 
alone, or experience alone, suppose himself to be 
Theophilus, and his eyes will soon be opened to his 
folly. Not to regard Theophilus as the representa- 
tive of humanity in the relation existing between 
him and Luke, who is the only witness for the apos- 
tles, is to be false to ourselves and the directive prov- 
idence of Jesus Christ. To do this is to break the 
connecting link between Jesus Christ and his consti- 
tuted embassadors to the nations. And this is just 
what our baptismal strife has done, and has made the 
book of Acts the most unmeaning book, and less 
used as a text-book than any other part of the New 
Testament. 

What a happy change. A few hours before the 
husband, the father premeditated self-murder ; now 
he rejoiced, believed in God with all his house. Now 



144 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the jailer sat meat before his prisoners, and Paul and 
Silas were honored guests at the table of the regen- 
erated jailer. 

O how many wretched families might be made 
happy if they would ask the question the jailer asked, 
and accept Paul's answer as he did. 

7th report. " And when Silas and Timotheus 
were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the 
spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. 
And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, 
he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your 
blood be upon your own heads ; I am clean : from 
henceforth I will go to the Gentiles. And he depart- 
ed thence, and entered into a certain man's house 
named Justus, one that worshiped God, whose house 
joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus, the 
chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord 
with all his house; and many of the Corinthians 
hearing, believed and were baptized." 

There is nothing of the extraordinary in this re- 
port. No baptism of the Holy Ghost. No opening 
of hearts by the Lord. No earthquakes. Oposition 
to Jesus Christ and his gospel has been a common 
thing in all other places, and among all people. 
And that some in all places would accept Jesus and 
his salvation has also been a common result. These 
have been among the common fortunes of preaching 
Christ from the beginning until now. When the 
mere extraneous and circumstantial is separated from 
the other reports they are the same as this. Every 
item of this, expressed or implied, is found in all of 
them. Somebody, a Peter, a Philip, or a Paul 
preached Christ, and the people heard, believed, and 
were baptized. The preacher preached " that Jesus 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 145 

was Christ." He preached " Jesus Christ and him 
crucified.'' No other appliances were resorted to to 
promote conversion. Modern expedients were not 
then thought of. The divine excellency of the gos- 
pel was not then obscured by human devices. There 
was nothing like anxious-seats, agonizings, experi- 
ence-telling, etc., in those days of apostolic simplicity; 
or if there was, Luke, either through shame or forget- 
fulness, failed to report it to his friend Theophilus. 

But he said in his report, Paul testified " that 
Jesus was Christ/' "and many of the Corinthians 
hearing, believed and were baptized." If the genu- 
ineness of these conversions may not be doubted, 
what then ? Reader, what then ? 

8th report. u And it came to pass, that, while 
Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through 
the upper coasts, came to Ephesus ; and finding cer- 
tain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received 
the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they said, 
unto him, We have not so much as heard whether 
there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, 
Unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said 
Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily 
baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto 
the people, that they should believe on him which 
should come after him, that is Christ. When they 
heard this, they were baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus." 

The extraordinary in this report attaches to the 
subjects and not to the apostle's disposition of the 
case. It is not a matter of importance when these 
twelve men were baptized, or by whom. If it were, 
Luke would not have left that to mere inference. 
There is only one important fact, namely, that these 
10 



146 THE BAPTISMAL CONTBOVEKSY. 

twelve men were unbaptized. If Paul had not so re- 
garded them he would not have baptized them. And 
if they had not so regarded themselves after being 
better informed, they would have raised the question 
of re-baptism and have declined another baptism. In 
this fact both Paul and themselves agreed ; therefore, 
" When they heard this they were baptized in the 
name of the Lord Jesus." 

After Jesus Christ had given commandment to his 
apostles to preach " repentance and remission of 
sins " in his name, among all nations, beginning at 
Jerusalem, nothing could be baptism that was not in 
the name of the Lord Jesus. However John's bap- 
tism may have been regarded before that time, it 
could not. after that be regarded as valid, inasmuch as 
it did not represent Jesus Christ in his official char- 
acter as the forgiver of sins. 

Baptism is not a simple, but a compound. Its ac- 
tion, design, and the name of the Lord are compo- 
nent parts of the ordinance. These are so intimately 
connected that we cannot separate them without 
destroying the institution. The action alone is not 
baptism. The design alone is not baptism. The 
official titles Jesus, Christ, Lord, alone are not bap- 
tism, but these three conjoined are baptism. The 
separation of constituent parts are always, and in all 
cases, the destruction of the thing. If we separate 
the gases of which water is made, we have no water, 
and the same is true of light or heat, of food or med- 
icines. 

John's baptism was not the baptism of which we 
speak. It was wanting in two essential elements, 
(rod did not commission John to baptize in the name 
of the Lord Jesus. Neither did God commission 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 147 

John the Baptist to preach repentance and baptism 
for the remission of sins. He was sent to baptize 
for widely different objects, according to his own 
statements. But it is said, " And he came into all 
the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of 
repentance for the remission of sins." He did not, 
then preach repentance and baptism " for the remis- 
sion of sins/' The baptism of repentance "for the 
remission of sins," and " Repent and be baptized for 
the remission of sins," are very different propositions. 
The words are the same, but the relation of the words 
are not the same. In exegesis the relation of words 
is as important as the words. The relation in the 
first is baptism, repentance, remission of sins. In 
the second it is repentance, baptism, remission of 
sins. In the first baptism is the remote ; in the 
second repentance is the remote, and baptism is the 
nearest neighbor to remission of sins. John's baptism 
had some relation to remission of sins, but it was not 
the relation of the commission, (i He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved." John the Baptist 
could not say, in the present tense, " In whom we 
have redemption through his blood, even the forgive- 
ness of sins." He could not say what the apostle 
John said, " I write unto little children because your 
sins are forgiven for- his names soike" The most he 
could say he did say, " Behold the Lamb of God that 
taketh away the sin of the world." The sin of the 
world was not at that time taken away, for the Lamb 
was not yet slain. Prospective remission was not re- 
mission in fact. No two institutions were more rad- 
ically different than John's baptism and the baptism 
ordained by Jesus Christ. 

John's baptism was adapted by the wisdom of Grod 



148 THE BAPTISMAL CONTJROVEKSY. 

to its time, and place, and objects. But it would 
ha\e been wholly inapposite to the times of Jesus 
Christ from his ascension to his final coming. The 
soundness of this proposition will be seen at first view 
by substituting the one for the other, in the order of 
time. 

Suppose Peter had preached the baptism of John 
on Pentecost, and had said to the inquiring multitude, 
" that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore 
am I come baptizing with water/' Again, if Peter 
had commanded the inquirers that they should " be- 
lieve on him who was to come ;" or suppose again, if 
John had said to the Jews of his time, " Repent and 
be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit/' We cannot imagine a 
greater incongruity than such a substitution. If the 
baptism of John would not have been in harmony 
with the times of the apostles, and the baptism of the 
apostles would not have been in harmony with the 
times of John, then the identity of baptism is but an 
assumption. Upon this assumption rests the sophism, 
" When they heard this they were (had been) baptized 
in the name of the Lord Jesus/' Would such a re- 
vision of the text be allowable, namely, to strike out 
the words, " they were," and substitute the words, 
" had been ? " We may comment upon a passage as 
much as we please, but it is rather a daring business 
to alter the text ; a thing that is seldom done unless 
to maintain a favorite theory. The early Baptists 
affirmed that John's baptism was immersion. To 
this their opponents had to yield. But the re-baptism 
of the twelve men at Ephesus became a troublesome 
case for the Baptists. If these twelve, who were 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 149 

baptized unto John's baptism, and had not so much as 
heard whether there was any Holy Ghost, were re- 
baptized by Paul, then the conclusion would follow 
that John's baptism was not Christian baptism ; and 
if not, the argument for immersion, based on John's 
immersion, was not conclusive, for then Christian 
baptism, inasmuch as the word baptize was indefinite, 
might be pouring or sprinkling. 

The controversy now turned upon the twelve dis ■ 
ciples of John that Paul found at Ephesus. A new 
interpretation must be given to Acts 19 : 5, or the 
Baptists must surrender to their opponents. This 
would involve their distinctive denominational dogma. 
This they could not surrender to the Pedobaptists. 
Denominationalism never has and never will give up 
the ghost without strugglings and groanings. In the 
process of time John Gill, D. D., the famous Baptist 
commentator, brought relief. He made the discovery 
that the twelve disciples of John had been baptized 
in the name of the Lord Jesus. A controversial 
necessity was father to the thought had been. Had 
been, meaning they were, L e., " When they heard 
this they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus." This assuption involves another, namely, 
that baptism was the same from John to Jesus, and 
from Jesus to the apostles, that through all these 
progressive stages baptism was an identity. 

This hypothesis is at present being defended by an 
unlooked for party — by an appeal to Mark 1 :1, 
" The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God." The word gospel being qualified by 
the word beginning, makes this passage too indefinite 
to build a theory upon, for the word beginning, in 
this form of speech, implies progress, and progress 



150 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEESY. 

implies consummation. What may be perfectly 
adapted to the incipiency of any system of growth 
and development might be wholly inapposite in after 
stages of progress, and wholly unbefitting when the 
system has reached its ultimatum. " The beginning 
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," can 
be the gospel of Jesus Christ only in the sense that 
the bud is the blossom, or that the blossom is the 
ripe fruit. 

It is indeed not a supposable case that John's 
baptism was the baptism of Christ's last instructions 
to the eleven. In all the new specifications and 
formulas, in the names of Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit (nouns expressive of relation) and in the official 
titles Lord, Jesus, Christ, identity is utterly inde- 
fensible ; and if this cannot be maintained from the 
report of the case, then is the re-baptism of the 
twelve an imagination to support a wayward cause. 
By identity we mean more than similarity, we mean 
the thing itself. 

The question, how was the text "When they heard 
this they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus," understood by Theophilus, not how was it 
understood when first thrown into the whirl-pool of 
party strife ? All interpretations of Scripture elicit- 
ed in the fire of controversy should be received with 
the utmost caution. Who would gravely affirm that 
Theophilus would have understood that the twelve 
were not baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus," 
or that he would have understood their baptism to be 
a re-baptism ? 

We doubt not but one prime object of the report 
was to inform Theophilus, and through him all the 
world, that nothing could be accepted for baptism 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 151 

that was not ordained by the coronated Lord and 
Christ, and performed in his name. All this is 
suggested by the prophecy of David in the 110th 
Psalm, " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at 
my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool." 
This prediction could be fulfilled only by the Lord 
saying to David's Lord, " Sit thou on my right hand, 
until I make thy foes thy footstool." The Father of 
David's Lord officiated on this occasion ; himself pro- 
nounced the inaugural ceremony. Sometime between 
the seven days intervening from the ascension into 
heaven and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pente- 
cost, that formality by which Jesus was constituted 
"both Lord and Christ " did actually occur. This 
formal act of exaltation was doubtless that for which 
Jesus prayed, u Father, the hour is come, glorify thy 
Son." " And now, Father, glorify thou me, with 
thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee 
before the world was." At the time of this prayer 
Jesus was not yet glorified, but in the third chapter 
of Acts Peter said to the Jews, " The God of our 
fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus." In John 17th 
the glorification was future, but in Acts 3d the glori- 
fication is in the past tense — u hath glorified his Son 
Jesus." " Therefore being by the right hand of God 
exalted." Acts 2 : 33. « Exalted, raised to a lofty 
hight, elevated, honored with rank or office." 

The ascension of Jesus to heaven was not his glo- 
rification. Others had ascended before he ascended, 
but they were not " exalted " with official honor and 
dignity. " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou 
on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. 
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly > 
that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have 



152 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

crucified, both Lord and Christ.'' This was more 
than, " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God." This was the end of the beginning. 
This was the last, the crowning fact. This was the 
consummation. As respects the gospel, there was no 
more progress. Not one new fact has been added to 
that which, by the way of distinction and eminence, 
is called the word of the Lord. 

From this time Luke adopted a new style when 
speaking of baptism. In his first treatise he speaks 
of John's baptism as a living institution — as some- 
thing imperative. In his second treatise he speaks of 
John's baptism as something in the past — as having 
no imperative importance. His style is discriminat- 
ing. When he speaks of John's baptism he says so. 
He speaks of two baptisms, one past and one present. 
When he speaks of John's baptism he qualifies it with 
the noun John. When he speaks of the other, he 
says baptism without any qualification. If baptism 
(the action excepted) was the same after the glorifica- 
tion of the Christ as it was before, why carry along 
the qualifying prefix, John's, in some statements, and 
omit it in other statements ? This style is deceptive 
unless the design of the writer was to discriminate 
between that of the past and the present. Of Apollos 
he says, " Knowing only the baptism of John." 
" Knowing only " has a well understood meaning. 
In all cases it means imperfect knowledge. Why was 
this said of Apollos if John's baptism was the baptism 
of the times ? On that supposition Paul and Luke 
themselves knew no other. And why did Patil 
detect so quickly that the ignorance of the twelve in 
regard to the Holy Spirit was involved in their 
baptism? And why did he say John baptized unto 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 153 

repentance and belief in the coming Christ ? Was 
not this saying by fair implication that this was not 
the object of the present baptism ? How can these 
facts be made to harmonize with the construction, 
" When they heard this they were (that is, had been,) 
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus?" 

The power of theory is most strikingly illustrated 
by this illustration. Every theorist assumes to be 
wise above what is written. But for this assumption 
we would have no theories of either doctrine or prac- 
tice. If immersion can be defended only by an in- 
terpretation so irreconcilable with the natural sense 
of Scripture, it would be the part of candor to give 
it up. For it will at least admit of doubt whether 
truth defended by false methods is more acceptable to 
the Lord than well-meant error. 

9th report. " And it came to pass, that as I 
made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus, 
about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great 
light roundabout me. And I fell to the ground, and 
heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why perse- 
cutest thou me ? And I answered, Who art thou, 
Lord ? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Naza- 
reth, whom thou persecutest. * * * And I 
said, What shall I do, Lord ? And the Lord said 
unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus ; and there it 
shall be told thee of all things which are appointed 
for thee to do. And when I could not see for the 
glory of that light, being led by the hand of them 
that were with me, I came into Damacus. And one 
Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having 
a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came 
unto me and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, 
receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up 



154 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROYEBSY. 

upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers 
hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will, 
and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice 
of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all 
men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now 
why tarriest thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
Acts 22 : 6-16. 

There are two distinct objects reported in this case. 
Saul's call to the apostleship by Jesus. Christ pre- 
ceded his conversion to Jesus Christ. But these 
different objects are not blended in Paul's statement. 
If the reader will note carefully what belongs 'to the 
call, and what belongs to the conversion, and that 
Jesus of Nazareth called him to be an apostle, and 
Ananias called him to be a saint, the report will be 
easily understood. In this writing we have to do 
with the means by which Paul was saved from his 
sins. His question, What shall I do, Lord ? bears 
directly on this point. What shall I do, Lord ? as a 
sinner, a persecutor. When Saul asked this question 
he knew not that he was to be a witness for Jesus ; 
therefore the motive of the question could be only, 
What shall I do as a sinner? He knew not the 
divine motive of the appearance of the glorified 
Christ. His conversion could have been affected 
without this— as it was — but without this he could 
not be a witness to the resurrection of Christ. The 
Lord answered his question just this far, " Go into 
Damascus ; and there it shall be told thee of all 
things which are appointed for thee to do." Ananias 
told Saul first what the Lord would have him to do 
as a chosen witness. " For thou shalt be his witness 
unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. H 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 155 

Such testimony would be received in any court. And 
second, Ananias told him what he must do as a 
sinner. " And now why tarriest thou ? Arise, and 
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord." As yet, Saul was neither a 
witness nor a sinner saved. His prospective relations 
were two-fold. His duties were personal and relative, 
but the personal took precedence. The duty to be a 
witness was relative, but to be baptized was personal 
and immediate, and preparatory to his apostolic 
duties. 

And now, why tarriest thou ? There are many 
causes of delay. The eleven had to " tarry until 
they were endued with power from on high ; tJ and 
Saul had to tarry until he had an answer to his ques- 
tion, " What shall I do, Lord ? v The messenger 
sent to him from the Lord to tell him what he should 
do having come, he said to the man called to testify 
"to all men," "And now why tarriest thou?" 
Remove the hindrance that lies in the way at once. 
Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, call- 
ing on the name of the Lord. " And straightway 
(after he was baptized) he preached Christ in the 
synagogues, that he is the Son of God/' Acts 
9 : 20. 

Saul's sins were not washed away by seeing the 
glorified Christ, nor by the great light, nor by his 
three days' fasting and blindness, nor yet by his 
repenting and praying, but by the command of 
Christ, through Ananias, " And now why tarriest 
thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 

As we said before, how would Theophilus under- 
stand the report ? not how do we understand it who 



156 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

have subjected every shred in the entire warp and 
woof of conversion to controversy and strife, and 
many contradictory theories. Saul was saved from 
his sins by the ordinary means ordained by Jesus 
Christ. Whatever is extraordinary in the case 
relates to his apostleship, to which he was called in 
an unsaved state, but did not enter upon his ministry 
to which the Lord called him until his sins were 
washed away. 

We have now examined nine formal reports of 
conversion under the apostolic ministry. Eight of 
these have something extraordinary in their circum- 
stantial surroundings. It seems Luke selected such 
for report as were dissimilar in their individuality 
and nationality. In the remote causes by which the 
sinner's attention was arrested there was great diver- 
sity. Every shade in human character is compre- 
hended in these reports : Jews and Gentiles, worship- 
ers of God and worshipers of idols ; but when the 
reporter gives the immediate causes of conversion, we 
find a most perfect uniformity — a uniformity that fills 
the mind with astonishment in this age of diverse 
appliances — a mixture of things human and divine. 
In every case of apostolic success in turning sinners 
to righteousnoss, the means were of divine ordination, 
therefore they were in all cases the same. The sav- 
ing process, whether by Peter, or Philip, or Paul, 
began and ended in the same way — began with 
preaching Christ, and ended with the baptizing of 
those that believed. In proof of this important 
affirmation, we will give a brief induction : 

1. Peter at Jerusalem. Acts 2: 22,41. "Ye 
men of Israel, hear these words ; Jesus of Nazareth." 
This was the beginning of the effort. " Then they 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 157 

that gladly received his word were baptized." This 
was the end. 

2. Acts 8 : 5, 12. " Then Philip went down to 
the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them." 
" And when they believed Philip," " they were bap- 
tized both men and women. 9} This was the begin- 
ning and the end of Philip's converting effort in that 
place. 

3. Acts 8: 35,38. " Then Philip opened his 
mouth and began at the same Scripture and preached 
unto him Jesus." u And they went down both into 
the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he bap- 
tized him." Philip's mission was now accomplished, 
and the preacher and the convert were separated by 
the same Spirit which had brought them together. 

4. Acts 10 : 36, 48. " The word which God 
sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by 
Jesus Christ : he is Lord of all." "And he com- 
manded them to be baptized in the name of the 
Lord." So Peter began and so he ended at Cesarea. 

5. Acts 16: 14, 15. " And a certain woman" 
" whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended 
unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And 
when she was baptized." This was the beginning 
and the end of Paul's effort at that place, " where 
prayer was wont to be made/' 

6. Acts 16 : 31-34. u Sirs, what must I do to be 
saved?" " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." 
" And they spake unto him the word of the Lord,'' 
"And he took them the same hour of the night," 
" and was baptized." First Christ and then bap- 
tized. 

7. Acts 18 : 5, 8. " Paul was pressed in the 
spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was the 



158 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Christ." " And many of the Corinthians hearing, 
believed and were baptized." 

8. Acts 19: 4, 5. "Then said Paul, John verily 
baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto 
the people that they should believe on him which 
should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 
When they heard this they were baptized in the name 
of the Lord Jesus." 

9. Acts 22 : 8, 10, 16. " I am Jesus of Naza- 
reth whom thou persecutest." "And I said, What 
shall I do, Lord?" a And now why tarriest thou? 
Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, call- 
ing on the name of the Lord." 

This induction will fully justify the proposition 
submitted above, namely, " The saving process, 
whether by Peter, Philip, or Paul, began and ended 
in the same way — began with preaching Christ and 
ended with the baptizing of those that believed." 
Luke in all his reports does not give a single case of 
instantaneous conversion by the Holy Spirit. The 
inspired preachers in his day did not begin their 
work of sinner-saving by preaching the Holy Spirit, 
and end in any place, community, or individual, with 
an experience, told or untold. In those days of 
divine direction and inspiration, sinners were not 
drawn out of the love, practice, and guilt of sin by a 
single heat of some abstract influence of the Holy 
Spirit. The apostles did not preach the Holy Spirit, 
and make an experience the evidence of a saved 
perished convert. They did not preach the Holy 
Spirit as the Saviour. They did not command sin- 
ners to repent and be baptized in the name of the 
Holy Ghost for the remission of sins. But they 
preached Jesus Christ and his name for the remission 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 159 

of sins. " To him give all the prophets witness that 
through his name whosoever believeth on him shall 
receive remission of sins.'' " Neither is there salva- 
tion in any other ; for there is none other name under 
heaven, given among men, whereby we must be 
saved." 

If this view of saving sinners is disparaging to the 
office and agency of the Holy Spirit, we leave the re- 
sponsibility with the apostles and their reporter. 
We say again, there was a perfect uniformity in their 
procedure. The immediate instrumental causes by 
which they saved sinners were in all cases the same, 
because sinners are the same. Those who were 
charged on Pentecost with having " by wicked hands 
crucified " Christ, were no more than sinners, and 
the devout centurion at Cesarea was no less. How- 
ever the sinners differed in their moral characters, 
degrees of enlightenment, belief or unbelief, peni- 
tence or impenitence, the same gospel of salvation was 
preached to all. As we have seen, every case of apos- 
tolic success reported to Theophilus began with 
preaching Christ and ended with the baptism of those 
who believed on Jesus Christ. Therefore, whatever 
lay between the beginning and the end, whether ex- 
pressed or implied, was in all cases the same. Even 
Saul of Tarsus, that " chosen vessel/' was no excep- 
tion to the rule. " I am Jesus of Nazareth whom 
thou persecutest," was brief, but comprehended all 
that Jesus was, both personally and officially. The 
light he saw did not give him faith in the Christ, it 
only called his attention to the speaker. His faith, 
like the faith of Thomas, was in part the result of a 
personal revelation, and therefore not so blessed as 
that faith which comes by hearing — by a verbal reve- 



160 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEKSY. 

lation — by testimony. Saul's question, What shall 
I do, Lord ? was an emphatic confession of his faith 
in Christ. And his humble bearing after he believed 
was evidence of his repentance — his godly sorrow. 

The captured lion will only become the more en- 
raged. He will be a furious lion still. This appre- 
hension decided Ananias not to go to Saul. " But 
the Lord said unto him, go thy way : for he is a 
chosen vessel unto me." Then Ananias went and 
told him what he must do to be saved. Jesus Christ 
having committed the preaching of the gospel to men, 
he would not depart from this order. He would not 
in person, or by angel, or spirit even tell one "chosen 
to be a minister and a witness," what he should do to 
be saved. There is an infinite decorum in all the 
works of Christ. His way of saving sinners is uni- 
form and equal. This inspires confidence in those 
who know the way of the Lord, for then they know 
the ground of their hope. But if his ways of saving 
men were many and diversified, who could hope in 
his mercy, or who would know where to find him ? 

The uniformity of Luke's reports must impress 
every mind with this conviction, that Jesus Christ 
has revealed but one way of saving sinners. • What- 
ever the Lord may do outside of that revelation we 
know not, for " who has known the mind of the Lord 
or who hath been his counselor?" But of this we 
may be confident, the Lord will hold those who have 
that revealed way of salvation, to that way. He will 
not allow them to dictate for themselves or others and 
then look to him for salvation. 

The almost universal abandonment of Luke's style 
of reporting the progress of conversions suggests a 
departure. Who of the many denominations report 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 161 

in Luke's style ? " Then they that gladly received 
his word were baptized," " they were baptized both 
men and women," " And he commanded them to be 
baptized," "And when she was baptized, and her 
household," "and many of the Corinthians hearing, 
believed, and were baptized." This was Luke's 
chosen style. He concluded every formal report in 
the same way, by the same word — the word baptized. 
There is but one religious body who have retained 
the Lukerian style in this particular. All the other 
bodies have adopted a different phraseology. By com- 
paring their reports with Luke's we would not be 
led to the conclusion that conversion was the same 
now as then, effected by the same means now as then. 
In the reports found in the party journals, baptism is 
but rarely mentioned at all, and when it is it has no 
relation to the salvation of the convert, but relates to 
his after church membership. This removes the ordi- 
nance out of that place to which Jesus assigned it, 
when he said, "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ;" and the apostles said, " Repent and 
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit '' — and Luke, the witness 
for the apostles, reported, " Then they that gladly 
received his wordwere baptized." 

No language could have assigned to baptism with 
more definiteness its place as one of the saving means 
ordained by Jesus Christ. Therefore the departure 
from the Scripture style is conclusive evidence that 
there has been a corresponding departure from gos- 
pel means in saving sinners. Jesus Christ gave both 
place and prominence to baptism as one among other 
gracious means in giving to sinners the assurance of 
11 



162 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

a present salvation. That both primitive place and 
importance are denied to the institution has been a 
legitimate consequence of the baptismal controversy, 
and that has now become a frightful cause of more 
and continued strife, which can only be settled by a 
candid reference to Luke's reports of apostolic con- 
versions, as recorded in his second treatise. 

We have before said that Luke's second treatise 
was the only connecting link between Jesus Christ 
and his apostles. This statement is worthy of more 
extended amplification. Matthew, Mark, and John 
kept up the connection until the ascension, then the 
chain of connection is broken, but Luke continues the 
chain unbroken until the imprisonment of Paul. His 
second treatise is, therefore, the only historic connec- 
tion between the exalted Christ and his apostles. 
What would the four biographical sketches of the 
life of Jesus be worth without this or its contents, 
written or unwritten ? And what would the epistles 
be worth without this? What would we know of the 
propagation of the gospel if we had not the book of 
Acts ? of the formation of the church ? of conversion ? 
etc., if we had not the Acts of Apostles? This is 
like the key-stone in the arch, it combines and gives 
permanency and strength to the entire structure. It 
unites into an intelligible and symmetrical whole the 
four testimonies, epistles, and " The Revelation of 
Jesus Christ unto his servant John.'' From this 
second treatise we " learn what true Christianity is, 
and how far the modern exhibitions of it have degen- 
erated from the apostolic order" of turning sinners to 
God. Dr. Adam Clarke observes, " In the book of 
Acts we see how the Church of Christ was formed 
and settled. * * The religion of Christ stands in 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 163 

no need either of human cunning or power. It is 
the religion of God and is propagated by this power ; 
this the book of Acts fully shows, and in it we find 
the true model after which every church should be 
builded. As far as any church can show that it has 
followed this model, so far it is holy and apostolic/' 
See commentary — preface to Acts. Perhaps this 
commentator did not fully comprehend the practical 
import of his own words. 

The four testimonies close just where the mind be- 
comes most interested — where the desire to know 
more is the strongest. We will illustrate this fact by 
a reference to Mark. " Afterward he appeared unto 
the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them 
with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because 
they believed not them which had seen him after he 
was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all 
the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned. * * So 
then, after the Lord had spoken unto them he was 
received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of 
God. And they went forth, and preached every- 
where, the Lord working with them, and confirming 
the word with signs following. Amen." 

This final "Amen" is an abrupt closing up. It 
excites a virtuous desire for fuller information, but 
gives no more. The writer does not say where the 
apostles began to preach the gospel. He gives not 
one example of their preaching. He reports not a 
single convert — not so much as one sinner saved. 
He records not one sign of confirmation, but in very 
general terms says, they went every where, and the 
Lord confirmed the word. This would be unsatisfac- 



164 THE BAPTISMAL CONTHOVEKSY. 

tory. It would be creating a desire without provid- 
ing the means of gratification; but what is w T anting in 
Mark is supplied by Luke. Luke informed an indi- 
vidual of all these questions left unanswered by Mark, 
and through that individual he informed the world. 
To the truth of this, every man that has a copy of 
the New Testament is witness. To these points we 
have spoken with sufficient detail, and shall now call 
attention to the signs of confirmation. These, more 
than anything, show the meaning of the figure, " the 
connecting link" between Jesus Christ and his apos- 
tles ; for what they preached he confirmed. 

" Therefore, being by the right of God exalted, and 
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy 
Ghost, he hath shed forth that which you now see 
and hear." This was a sign of confirmation, and so 
understood by the multitude. This was confirming 
the word with a sign addressed to the eye and the 
ear. This confirmation came from the throne. After 
Christ was exalted he was not a mere looker-on. He 
was an active worker with those whom he had chosen 
t& preach the word. But this confirmation was no 
part of the word confirmed. The testimony in no 
case is any part of the truth testified to. The saving 
power was in the word and not in the sign of confirm- 
ation. This confirmation was important only to 
remove doubt and uncertainty from the minds of those 
to whom the apostles preached. Beyond this it pos- 
sessed no saving importance. But the signs of con- 
firmation had to cease ; for that which is always being 
confirmed is never confirmed — is never established. 
When the testimony to any truth is sufficient to re- 
move all reasonable doubt there are no more witnesses 
called to the stand, whether all are convinced or 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 1G5 

not. To multiply witnesses after that point is gained 
would only create doubt. 

u The Lord working with them, and confirming the 
word with signs following." "The word '* in the 20th 
verse is the same as "the gospel" in the 15th verse. 
The accompanying attestations were proof that the 
apostles preached only what the Lord commanded 
them to preach, for the Lord would not have confirm- 
ed what he had not commanded them to preach. The 
same miraculous signs which confirmed the truth of 
the gospel, also confirmed to every one who believed 
and obeyed the gospel, the promise, shall be saved.' 
and also confirmed the judgment pronounced upon 
the unbeliever, shall be damned. The threatened 
condemnation is as much confirmed as the promised 
salvation. Therefore let every preacher take heed 
that he preach to sinners, for their salvation, only 
those facts, commands, and promises that were con- 
firmed by the glorified Christ during the period of 
the apostles' ministry. During that ministry the 
signs of confirmation reached a point when there was 
no more room for honest doubt. 

Infidels and u liberal Christians " would say that is a 
proposition without a proof. The intelligent believer 
will say this is a proposition with a proof. Is it not 
a fact that, since the days of the apostles, some in 
every class of humanity have accepted the gospel 
without any additional signs of supernatural confirma- 
tion ? The facts known and read of all men are that 
firm and consistent believers are found among the 
most simple-hearted, weak in intellect ; also men of 
the most discriminating minds — men of the highest 
order of intellect and education — men of clean hands 
and pure hearts. Between these wide extremes there 



166 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

is every degree of credulity and incredulity. This 
we may confidently affirm. 

These palpable facts lead out this conclusion, that 
the confirmation of the gospel has been so adjusted 
to the human mind as to make belief a virtue and 
unbelief a sin. With all these premises in the divine 
mind, the risen Christ said, " He that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned. ,, " Behold, therefore, the goodness 
and severity of God, on them which fell severity." 

All that was preached in the times of the apostles 
was not confirmed by the Lord. u And certain men 
which came down from Judea taught the brethren, 
and said, Except ye be circumcised, after the manner 
of Moses, ye cannot be saved." However honest 
these preachers were, the Lord withheld his confirma- 
tion. 

It is highly important that we discriminate between 
what has been confirmed by the Lord and what has 
not. 

"And they went forth and preached everywhere, 
the Lord working with them, and confirming the 
word with signs following.'' These signs were visible 
displays of supernatural power. They could be 
detected by the senses — by the eye and by the ear. 
They were arguments. They were proofs to sustain 
a proposition. The proposition had to be stated, it 
had to be before the people, or the sign would have 
had no meaning. It might have been inexplicable, 
but it could not be a proof of anything, as there was 
nothing before the people to be proved. The word 
preached was the proposition, and the sign was the 
proof. The apostles preached and the Lord worked. 
The gospel preached was from heaven and not of men ; 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEKSY. 167 

and the signs of confirmation were from heaven ; that 
made the proposition, and the proof homogeneal. 
Therefore no doctrine and commandments of men 
have ever been confirmed by a sign from heaven. 

All the present theories of salvation, Calvinistic 
and Armenian, have not received the divine sanction. 
Many valid reasons might be given for the truth of 
this statement, but we shall offer only two. For, 
first, the Lord would not give his approval to two or 
two hundred contradictory theories. And, second, 
not one of all the current philosophies of salvation 
was in existence until long after supernatural confirm- 
ation ceased ; therefore, all present formulated plans 
of salvation were born too late to claim divine authen- 
tication — only for so much of divinely attested truth 
as may be imbodied in the formulated system. All 
these theories embrace much of the divine, some 
more, and some less, but the difference is not so much 
in what they have of the divine, as what they have of 
the human ; for all of them have much more than 
the divine. It is the human element that constitutes 
the differential peculiarity, and is the cause of Pro- 
testant strife and division — that which has no divine 
confirmation. 

On the great question of salvation we are as well 
provided against imposture now as they were in the 
apostolic age. That which was preached by the em- 
bassadors of Christ, sent to the nations, was attested, 
by signs and wonders — by demonstrations of the 
Holy Spirit. These accompanying proofs of a divine 
mission and a divine message, were recorded, and 
have been transmitted and received as veritable his- 
tory from the beginning until now. But, as before 
said, we must discriminate between the messenger 



168 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

and his credentials, between the negotiations of the 
embassador and his governmental seal. The Scrip- 
tures make a very clear discrimination between the 
word preached and the signs of confirmation ; but 
the masses of sinners, church members, and minis- 
ters, have failed to notice that distinction, and the 
signs by which " the gospel of salvation" was con- 
firmed are preached as a part of the gospel itself. 
This misapprehension has led to great perversions 
and fanaticism. How frequently is prayer offered, 
especially on revival occasions, for a Pentecostal time, 
namely, a Pentecostal out-pouring of the Holy Ghost 
upon the sinners present. The " pouring out '* of the 
Spirit on the day of Pentecost was not preached. 
There was nothing said about it until the Jerusalem 
sinners saw and heard, and some were " amazed " 
and others " mocked." Then Peter said, " This is 
that which was spoken by the prophet Joel : * * 
And on my servants, and on my handmaidens, I will 
pour out in those days of my Spirit ; and they shall 
prophesy.'' This gives to this " pouring out " of the 
Spirit an appropriated application. " Servants and 
handmaidens " were its subjects. To make sinners 
subjects is an unfortunate misapplication, for sinners 
are made to believe that they must have something 
corresponding to that which was not promised to 
them, and because the God-fearing Cornelius was 
baptized with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized 
with water, they must experience something of the 
same kind. And because Saul of Tarsus saw a great 
light and heard the voice of the glorified Jesus, they 
must have an experience like his. The misapplica- 
tion of these promised and vouchsafed signs has 
begotten the love of the marvelous in conversion. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 169 

And if the experience cannot be adjusted to these 
things, extraordinary and temporary, these will have 
to be adjusted to the experience. Many sinners of 
honest purposes are misled by this mistaken philos- 
ophy. They look and pray, and pray and look for 
something marvelous, something strongly sensational, 
but it never comes, and they settle down in doubt 
and, in very many cases, in positive unbelief. On this 
we speak experimentally. 

In Luke's reports of apostolic labor and success, 
we see nothing of this kind. No love of the marvel- 
ous in conversion ; no looking for and praying for 
the sensational. The disposing motive on the part 
of sinners was a felt need of salvation, and an hum- 
ble, trustful faith in Christ as the only Saviour. 

The truth of this statement is confirmed by the 
questions asked and the answers given. " Men and 
brethren, what shall we do ? " " Sirs, what must I 
do to be saved V " What shall I do, Lord?" 
These questions indicated mental conditions, a felt 
need of something the querist wanted — something he 
had not. So the apostles entertained and answered 
every question, and the result in every case was the 
same, the inquiring sinner was baptized immediately 
without delay. And in every case the answer re- 
ceived divine confirmation. Therefore the only 
answer to these, or questions of the same import, 
must be given in the same way — by a repetition — 
or the answer has no divine sanction. Let him that 
hath an ear, hear. 

The apostles felt the need of Christ's continual co- 
operation with them. This was promised, and for 
this they prayed. " And now, Lord, behold their 
threatenings ; and grant unto thy servants, that with 



170 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching 
forth thy hand to heal ; and that signs and wonders 
may be done by the name of thy holy Son Jesus. 
And when they had prayed, the place was shaken 
where they were assembled together ; and they were 
all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the 
word with boldness/' This shows the mutuality be- 
tween Jesus Christ and his apostles, " and they spake 
the word with boldness." The saving power was in 
the word spoken and not in the sign. Again, " How 
shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation; 
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, 
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him ; 
God also bearing them witness, both by signs and 
wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the 
Holy Ghost, according to his own will." Hebrews 
2 : 3, 4. 

How intimate the relation between Christ and his 
apostles. How mutual the dependence between 
them. Jesus Christ depended upon them for speak- 
ing his word, and they depended upon him for con- 
firmation ; and now the world is dependent upon 
Jesus Christ for salvation, and dependent upon the 
apostles for the knowledge of salvation. 

And for our knowledge of the intimacy of this 
relation between the divine and the human, we are 
indebted to Luke's second treatise. This narrative — 
these reports to Theophilus — determine our own 
metes and boundaries in regard to present, personal 
salvation. To depart from these is both arrogant 
and daring. To depart from these records in teaching 
the way of salvation, is to wholly disregard the divine 
attest, the signs by which the glorified Christ con- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 171 

firmed his word, and to take the way of salvation into 
our own hands. 

" And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned. '* How foolish the 
sophism, " and is not baptized. r This addition 
would imply that we might have the last without the 
first, the end without the beginning. He that be- 
lieveth not has not come unto the ground. He is out 
of the range of the saving process, and therefore as 
a necessity he must be damned. This is the only 
disposition that the benevolent Christ can make of 
him. Is this language irreverent ? We submit the 
answer to the unbaptized who may flatter themselves 
with the deception that they believe on Christ. Many 
believe in the personality of Jesus Christ who do not 
believe Christ, for when Christ says, " He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved, n they do not 
believe him. To believe on Christ in a certain sense, 
and to believe Christ — to believe what Christ has said 
— to believe his word, are very different things. This 
fact is illustrated in the present case. Because Jesus 
Christ in his last commission did not add to the words 
u shall be damned " the words "and is not baptized,'' 
therefore they do not believe Christ when he said, 
" and is baptized shall be saved. v On the mere 
silence of Christ, because he did not say after "but 
he that believeth not shall be damned " " and is not 
baptized," therefore Jesus Christ did not attach any 
saving importance to baptism. Many preachers are 
urging this argument against the essentiality of 
baptism with an imposing plausibility. The argu- 
ment takes well with the masses. They will more 



172 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

readily believe the word of their preacher than believe 
the words of Christ, " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved." 

This liberty-taking with the word of the Lord has 
showed itself all along on one side of this baptismal 
issue. In this way they take salvation into their own 
hands. This is rivalry. Beware ! Beware ! ! 

In the preceding pages we have examined the only 
three witnesses on the subject of baptism from the 
resurrection of Christ to the end of the book of Acts. 
Matthew and Mark are the only witnesses for Christ 
on this subject. Luke and John are silent; they 
say not one word. And Luke's Acts of Apostles is 
the only witness for apostles and early evangelists on 
this subject. And after what we have said we shall 
offer some summary remarks on the suggestions of 
these testimonies relative to baptism in its three-fold 
aspects. 

From what we have gathered from the witnesses, 
neither Jesus nor his apostles said one word explana- 
tory of the subject, mode, or design of baptism. 
Neither Jesus nor his apostles said that infants were 
not subjects, or that believers were. That immersion 
was baptism and sprinkling was not. That the design 
of baptism was remission of sins, or that it was not. 
Not one of the New Testament writers said one word 
for the sake of the subject, mode, or design. In 
all they said involving these several parts of the 
ordinance such was not their design. . What they 
said on these different phases was incidental and 
subordinate to another thought. Therefore what they 
have said bearing on these great issues is indirect, 
and the evidence, for or against, is inferential. We 
do not say that the evidence on either point is not 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 173 

conclusive because it is inferential ; for when all the 
testimony of all the witnesses points in one direction, 
the evidence is conclusive, and the fact is established. 
In this way the Scriptures decide both subject, mode, 
and design. 

It was not the object of the apostles to get sinners 
baptized, but to save them. Whatever, therefore, 
belonged to the means of salvation, whether on the 
divine side or the human side, whether procuring or 
applying, came in for statement. The statement was 
the explanation. In those days the gospel of salva- 
tion was applied to sinners. Now it is explained to 
sinners. And the explanations of some subjects are 
many — they are " legions,'' as in the case of baptism. 

To apply the preceding to the subject in hand, we 
say, first: That infants are not subjects of baptism, 
because they are infants, neither are adults subjects 
because they are adults, but every statement, whether 
by Jesus Christ in his commission to the eleven, or 
the preaching of the apostles, the circumstances of 
their converts as reported by Luke points to believers 
and believers only. The conditions submitted, the 
promises made, are such as infancy is incapable of. 
Therefore, from the testimony gathered from all the 
stated facts, moral qualifications, capabilities to hear, 
to believe, to obey, to enjoy, have led to a uniform 
conclusion in favor of believers. On this, the church 
has always been a unit, however it was once and yet 
is, both the interest and ambition of pedo-baptism to 
put an end to believer's baptism. To do this, pedo- 
baptists have changed the base of their operations 
again and again. Every generation defends the 
theory upon a new basis, while believer's baptism has 



174 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEESY. 

stood upon the same ground for one thousand eight 
hundred years. 

The testimony must be very conclusive in favor of 
believer's baptism when it has secured uniformity of 
faith and practice. It is true in this, that the more 
important the proposition, the clearer should be the 
proof of it. 

We shall have more to say on this, when we shall 
have examined the Epistles. 

Second : The mode of baptism. Neither Jesus 
nor the apostles — Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, 
have said one word directly or by way of explanation. 
If John had said to Jesus that he must go into the 
water, and Matthew had recorded these words as 
words of instruction to Jesus, that would have been 
for the sake of the mode, and direct. 

The baptizer did not say Jesus " went up straight- 
way out of the water." Matthew said this eight years 
after the event. "Went up straightway out of the 
water " could not have been instruction to Jesus or 
the Jews of that time, for instructions on the mode to 
present subjects, or expected subjects always precede 
the administration. The writer said "went up," for 
the sake of what immediately followed, namely, the 
opening heaven, the descending Spirit, and the "voice 
from heaven,'" " This is my beloved Son." This, and 
not mode, was the motive of the writer, while the in- 
ference is very decisive on the side of an immersion. 

When Mark says thirty-two years after the event, 
" And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, 
and they of Jerusalem, and were baptized of him, in 
the river of Jordan," he was too late in the day to 
instruct the people on the question of mode. The 
only apparent design of the writer was place and not 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 175 

the action expressed by the word baptized, namely, 
that they of Judea, and Jerusalem were not baptized 
in a pool or a tributary, but in the river of Jordan. 
Faithful narrative would justify this statement, 
though unimportant as respects the mode of baptism 
either then or now. The remark was subordinate to 
another thought, and therefore the inference to which 
it leads is the more conclusive. 

When the apostle John said in A. D. 68, " And 
John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim be- 
cause there was much water there," he said it to show 
the disposing motive in the choice of place. John 
the Baptist having retired from the Jordan, select- 
ed another place equally favorable to his baptizing. 
This, and not the mode, was the design of this remark, 
wholly incidental as to any inference that might be 
deduced from it in after ages. For, long before these 
testimonies were published, baptism had become a 
well established fact among Jews and Gentiles and 
men of all nations and languages. Therefore when 
Matthew said Jesus " went up out of the water/' and 
when Mark said they " were baptized in the river Jor- 
dan," and when John said, u And John also was bap- 
tizing near to Salim because there was much water 
there," they could not have said this for the sake of 
defining the mode, nor for the sake of changing the 
mode, nor for the sake of confirming the mode, for 
Jesus had confirmed the mode the apostle preached, 
whatever that may have been, by " signs following." 
And that was the only mode that has ever received 
the divine seal. 

Under this head we must place what Luke said of 
the baptism of the eunuch. When he asked for bap- 
tism Philip did not say to him, you must go down into 



176 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the water. If Philip had said that to the applicant 
that would have been instruction on the mode, but 
Luke twenty-four years after said, " And he com- 
manded the chariot to stand still ; and they both went 
down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, 
and he baptized him." If this was not instruction to 
the eunuch, why was it said at all ? The sentence 
immediately following will answer this question. 
u And when they w T ere come up out of the water, the 
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the 
eunuch saw him no more ; and he went on his way 
rejoicing." This was an important and interesting 
item of information to Theophilus, as it has been to 
every reader since, namely, that Philip's preaching 
and baptizing was miraculously confirmed by the 
Spirit catching away the preacher, and that both the 
preaching and the baptism was satisfactory to the 
treasurer, for he went on his way rejoicing. 

All these were circumstances attending some of the 
primitive baptisms, but not explanatory to the bap- 
tized, either before or after. But as incidents they 
led to the same conclusion, while that conclusion was 
not in the mind of the writer. And if there had been 
no controversy about the mode, these records would 
not have been used for controversial purposes, there 
being no occasion to divert them from their original 
meaning. But the argument deduced from them is 
weakening to the cause sought to be defended by 
them, and gives large opportunity for cavil and sophis- 
try on the other side. For the supposition that these 
incidentals passed into the inspired record for the 
sake of immersion is a concession that the word bap- 
tize had not a fixed and specific meaning, but by such 
circumstances as the foregoing, we are enabled to 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEESY. 177 

maintain immersion against affusion. But the true 
ground and the scriptural ground is to rest the issue 
upon that word in which the ordinance is endorsed, 
so far as the action is concerned. 

Long before any such accompanying circumstances 
as we have cited were committed to record, myriads of 
Jews and Gentiles had been baptized. Their instruc- 
tion on the duty of baptism was oral ; there being no 
written instruction, they acted upon what they heard 
and saw. No one read, " They went down into the 
water;" no one read, "therefore we are buried 
with him by baptism/' When the apostles said be 
baptized, they did not say, " which being interpreted." 
No one asked, how shall I be baptized? If then 
the baptized, beginning with the baptism of John, 
(which was the same as respects mode until A. D. 64,) 
were dependent on verbal instruction, that instruc- 
tion must have been definite to have established and 
maintained uniformity. From all these facts we are 
led to the conclusion that the word baptize was suffi- 
ciently definite in meaning, and that meaning so 
understood by all as to need no explanation, there 
being no misunderstanding or controversy on the sub- 
ject during the whole of the apostolic period. If the 
right of choosing between different modes then, as 
now, had been allowed, it could not have been con-* 
cealed by the writers, and should not have been con- 
cealed if it could. The right of choice therefore was 
invented outside of the record and then brought to 
the record for support. And the support sought for 
is the hypothetical basis that the word baptize had no 
definite meaning when speech and silence, and every 
circumstance with . one voice declare that it had a 
definite, universally-understood meaning. Matthew 
12 



178 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

said for the sake of saying something else, "And 
Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway 
out of the water ; r and Mark said for the sake of 
saying another thing, " and were all baptized of him 
in the river of Jordan ;" and John said for the sake 
of giving expression to another thought, " because 
there was much water there ;" and Luke, for the sake 
of placing on record a "sign " of confirmation, said, 
"And when they were come up out of the water." 
These, with many others of the same import, are an 
unintended rebuke to the modes of sprinkling and 
pouring, but whether they were unpremeditated on 
the part of the Spirit of all wisdom we would neither 
affirm nor deny. 

Third. " The design of baptism is remission of 
sins/' This being an unscriptural proposition we 
may be allowed some freedom. It is at best but an 
abstraction, and as such the affirmation is not true. 
It cannot be affirmed of any one thing in the remedial 
system that it is for remission of sins. This would 
not be true of the blood of Christ, when viewed in 
the light of his own word, for he said, " Go preach 
the gospel." " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." Baptism like every thing else be- 
longing to the whole is like the tendrils of the vine, 
which reach out and fasten themselves to everything 
within their reach. In one view the proposition is 
more than the truth, and in another it is much less 
than the truth. Upon the one hand it ascribes more 
to baptism than belongs to it, and upon the other 
hand it detracts from other things what belongs to 
them. The affirmation that the design of baptism is 
remission of sins is more than the Scriptures will 
allow, and the negation that the design of baptism is 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 179 

not remission of sins, is less than the Scriptures claim; 
and when this is the issue the design of the ordinance 
must be subjected to cruel torture. The discussion 
will take a wide range, and the disputants will do but 
little more than to qualify each his own abstraction. 
No isste has yet been formed upon any text where 
the meaning of baptism is expressed. No disputant 
would have the temerity to take the negative of this 
text, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." Who dare to say no to this as a whole? 
And who but an infidel would in debate take the 
negative of this, " Repent and be baptized every one 
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission 
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit?" 

No issue could be agreed upon on any passage as 
a whole where the primary design of baptism is 
expressed. But if one will affirm that baptism is for 
salvation, another will deny and maintain in debate 
that baptism is not for salvation. If one will affirm 
that baptism is for remission of sins, qualify it as he 
may, another will take the negative, for it is after all 
the affirmation and the negation on whicli the issue is 
formed. The parties each presumes that he has the 
advantage. That the affirmant cannot prove what 
he is pledged to prove, and the respondent cannot 
disprove what he denies to be true. Still it must be 
true' that the risen Christ had some design when he 
commanded the eleven to teach the nations, baptizing 
them ; for a wise law-giver would not command some- 
thing for nothing. Baptism, like every other divine 
appointment, must have one primary object; that 
object, ta sinners who possessed the requisite moral 
qualification, was remission of sins, but in the absence 



180 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

of moral fitness it has no meaning, and a baptism is 
not baptism. But it is evident that baptism has other 
designs which do not terminate on conversion. 
Objects bearing on the after-life which give to bap- 
tism its chief and ultimate importance. This will be 
seen when we shall examine the epistles to the 
churches on this subject. Therefore, the design of 
baptism is remission of sins, is less than the whole 
truth, as that does not embrace all its subordinate 
designs. And a denial that baptism is for the remis- 
sion of sins is equally untrue, for that ignores the 
primary, the first expressed object of the institution, 
though it might by implication embrace every second- 
ary object. 

It is not our province to say more on this issue 
here. We only wish to say without impugning the 
motives of any, that truth has little to hope for from 
this mode of warfare. The subject of baptism, the 
mode of baptism, the design of baptism has an 
unscriptural odor. The phraseology is controversial. 
We have used this style under protest. It is this 
con troversial # style that is leading many away from 
the truth, rather than their heads or their hearts. 
We are more and more impressed that there is no 
cause for this baptismal controversy ; that there is 
nothing inherent in the institution, or its New Testa- 
ment history, which could have led to such results ; 
that the controversy originated in a departure and 
that now the strife continues and subsists, is fed and 
nourished by virtue of its own departure from the 
simplicity there is in Christ. If the strife had begun 
in the apostolic period, if it had begun in the time 
when Jesus Christ confirmed what the apostles 
preached and commanded and promised on the sub- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 181 

ject of baptism, we might charge all the bitter fruits 
of this controversy upon the institution itself or the 
imperfection «f the New Testament records. But 
that great Protestant aphorism — " The Scriptures of 
the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible 
rule of faith and practice/' fully exculpates the 
record from all blame, and lays the sin at the right 
door. That there is sin somewhere will not be 
denied. The denial would be evidence of a morbid 
conscience. It might be well for each of the parties 
to ask an old question, " Master, is it I ? v 



PART THIRD. 



CHAPTER I. 

In the Epistles of Paul and Peter to the churches, 
there are frequent references to their baptism. Allu- 
sions as to something understood. In some sense all 
these allusions are reminders of something past. It 
would have been strange that these churches in their 
unconverted stated should by virtue of a special com- 
mission have been instructed and baptized, and there 
should have been no allusion to their baptism after- 
wards. If this were so it would suggest that their 
baptism in all its aims and objects had been exhaust- 
ed in their conversion ; that it was only an induc- 
tion, and terminated in a change of state. But this 
is not the case, for the promise of Christ, "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved/' and the 
promises of the apostles, " Repent and be baptized 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for 
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Spirit/ ' are carried over into the epistles, 
and the saints are spoken to and spoken of as a saved 
and pardoned and spiritual people. And their bap- 
tism is made the predicate of exhortations to walk in 
newness of life, to set their affections on things above 
— exhortations to union, and that Jewish and Gen- 
tile members of the church should be one, etc. But 
this is general. We should bring the epistolary text 
before the reader, accompanied with a few remarks 
as the language may suggest. We will present the 
texts in numerical order. And, 1. "Know ye not, 
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 
were baptized into his death ? Therefore, we are 



186 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

buried with him by baptism into his death ; that like 
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory 
of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness 
of life/' Rom. 6 : 3, 4. 

Know ye not ? is always used as a reminder. It is 
equivalent to ye do know. But the negative form is 
most emphatic. Those in Rome " called to be saints" 
knew all this. They knew that they had been bap- 
tized into the death of Christ. They knew that their 
baptism was analogous to Christ's burial and his res- 
urrection, and they knew that all this meant that 
they should walk in newness of life — in a new and 
holy life. Upon this self-knowledge the apostle 
based that most cogent exhortation. The practical 
importance of this exhortation could not be over-esti- 
mated by the saints at Rome. They knew that by 
their baptism they had pledged themselves to Jesus 
Christ, to do and forbear as exhorted by the apostle. 
The apostle illustrates in an informal way their new 
relations and duties by a change of masters. Sin 
and righteousness — things impersonal — are masters. 
They were once servants of sin, but now they are 
servants of righteousness. This is the leading 
thought in the sixth chapter of Romans. The 
approach to a thought will in all cases suggest the 
words and imagery by which to give expression to the 
thought. Verse 16. " Know ye not, that to whom 
ye yield yourselves to obey, his servants ye are to 
whom ye obey ; whether of sin unto death, or of obe- 
dience unto righteousness? " This question was 
another u reminder " to the church at Rome. "Know 
ye notV "But God be thanked, that ye were the 
servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart 
that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being 



THE BAPTISMAL, CONTROVERSY. 187 

then made free, (emancipated) from sin, ye became 
the servants of righteousness. * * For when ye 
were the servants of sin, (before ye were emancipated) 
ye were free from righteousness. * * But now 
being made free from sin, and become servants to 
God," etc. 

This change of masters and servitude was the result 
of their own voluntary act. This was to them self- 
knowledge, "Know ye not that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into 
his death V This freed them from sin, their former 
master, and out of this subjection to Jesus Christ 
grew the obligation to u walk in newness of life." 

Such, then, was the meaning of their baptismal 
covenant with Jesus Christ. Such was the intended 
bearing of their baptism on their after life. It is 
quite evident that Paul had no fears that the saints 
in his day were over-estimating their baptism, that 
they were placing too much stress upon it. But is 
there no cause for serious apprehension that many, 
very many of those to whom it might be said with 
equal propriety, " Know ye not?" do not regard their 
baptism as the actual and real freedom from their old 
master — still continuing in his service, and not in the 
service of Jesus Christ ? This disregard of baptism 
on the after Christian life is at least in part one of 
the legitimate results of the baptismal controversy. 
Do ministers now remind their flocks, and say as 
Paul did, u Know ye not?" A majority of the pres- 
ent ministry cannot use this reminder, "Know ye not?' 9 
and other ministers must not lest they should give to 
what they are pleased to call an outward ordinance, 
more importance than they are willing to allow ; and 
perhaps others do not imitate Paul in this 



188 THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

they should incur the odium of making baptism a 
saving ordinance. 

Romans 6 : 3, 4, has now only a controversial 
importance. In the time of the text it had only a 
practical importance. We shall reserve other remarks 
for the nearly parallel passage in Colossians. 

2. " Buried with him by baptism, wherein also ye 
are risen with him through the faith of the operation 
of (rod, who hath raised him from the dead. And 
you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision 
of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, 
having forgiven you all trespasses." Col. 2: 12, 13. 

No explanations, no criticisms can make the mean- 
ing of this passage clear. Nothing but the context, 
the design of the writer, which must be gathered from 
the scope of the whole connection of which the text 
cited is a part. The passage begins with the chap- 
ter, " For I would that ye knew what great conflict I 
have for you, and for them of Laodicea, and as 
many as have not seen my face in the flesh." A con- 
flict may be a physical combat or it may be a strug- 
gling of the mind — distress or anxiety. The apostle 
gives the cause of his conflict in the fourth and eighth 
verses. "And this I say, lest any man should 
beguile you with enticing words." " Beware lest 
any man spoil you through philosophy and vain 
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments 
of the world, and not after Christ." This is before, 
u Buried with him," etc. In the context following 
he gives additional reasons for his anxiety on behalf 
of the saints, both those who had and had " not 
seen his face in the flesh." 

As the apostle had before cautioned the church 
against Gentile philosophy, he now cautioned her 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 189 

against Judaizing influences. He says, " Blotting 
out the hand writing of ordinances, that was against 
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the 
way, nailing it to the cross ; " " Let no man there- 
fore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a 
holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath 
days ; '' " Let no man beguile you/' etc. " Where- 
fore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments 
of the world, why, as though living in the world,, are 
ye subject to ordinances ? " " Touch not, taste not, 
handle not ; which all are to perish with the using, 
after the commandments and doctrines of men. 
Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will- 
worship, ,} etc. 

A vain, deceitful Gentile philosophy set forth with 
all the fascinations of oratory, and a dead, defunct 
Judaism, for when the Jews nailed Jesus Christ to 
the cross, he nailed their law of commandments con- 
tained in Jewish ordinances to the cross, which were 
never taken down, but which still had a show in will- 
worship, a pompous showy worship, well adapted to 
u beguile the Jewish converts to Christ/' These 
ever-active, sleepless, seductive Gentile and Judaizing 
influences were the cause of the apostle's great conflict, 
i For I would that ye knew what great conflict I 
have for you and for them of Laodicea and for as 
many as have not seen my face in the flesh." But 
for this conflict Paul would not have said to the 
.church at Colosse, " Buried with him in baptism, 
'wherein also ye are risen with him." But before and 
after he reminded the saints of their baptism, he 
called their attention to Christ, by way of contrast 
with those who. would spoil them with worldly phi- 
losophy, and the abolished ordinances of Judaism. 



190 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 

Of Christ he says, " In whom are hid all the treas- 
ures of wisdom and knowledge." " For in him 
dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And 
ye are complete in him, which is the head of all prin- 
cipality and power : In whom also ye are circum- 
cised with the circumcision made without hands in 
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the 
circumcision of Christ." The saints being " com- 
plete " in Christ, for in him there was " fullness" — 
perfection. They were then provided in Christ with 
all " wisdom and knowledge." They had no need of 
any other guides, and by their acceptance of him 
they were circumcised, cut off from all other leaders, 
from all the rudiments of the world, from all the 
commandments of men, whether Jewish or Gentile. 
The apostle exhorted them to forsake all others in 
these words, " As ye have therefore received Christ 
Jesus, the Lord, so walk ye in him : Rooted and 
built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye 
have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiv- 
ing. Beware lest any spoil you." "As ye have 
received Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk ye in him." 
They had received Christ Jesus, the Lord, as their 
all-sufficient Saviour — their only Saviour. And as 
evidence of their committal to him the apostles 
reminded them of their baptism, " Buried with him 
in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him 
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath 
raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in 
your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath 
he quickened together with him, (made alive with 
him) having forgiven you all trespasses." 

We attempt no explanation of the figure, "buried/' 
and the fact baptized. The apostle assumed that he 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 191 

was understood by those addressed. Were the peo- 
ple of that generation more intelligent than now ? 
Were they better educated ? Did they understand 
the meaning of language better than we ? If the 
language of the passage before us was intelligible 
then, why is it not now ? If not now, why not ? 
They understood the design of the writer. At that 
time there was no text-scrapping — no expounding 
They read the passage for practical purposes, we 
read it for controversial purposes. They were 
instructed by the apostle, we are instructed by dis- 
putants. The most important part of the passage 
now is the figure, "buried/' while the fact of the 
figure, "baptism, " is of little importance. 

By this reminder the apostle brought four things 
to the recollection of the church at Colosse. 

First. That they had been " buried with Christ 
in baptism." 

Second. "Wherein also/' in " baptism/' they 
had " risen with him. r 

Third. That they had been quickened together 
with him. 

Fourth. That Christ had " forgiven '' them all 
their "trespasses." 

These were not new revelations, but things known, 
understood. From these as so many predicates he 
draws the practical conclusions, "Beware least any 
man spoil you;" "Let no man beguile you," and 
then the apostle makes this baptismal burial and 
rising with Christ the basis of one of the most impres- 
sive exhortations. 

Ci If then ye be risen with Christ, seek those things 
which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right 
hand of God. Set your affection on things above, 



192 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 

not on the things on the earth," etc. There is only- 
one possible burial and rising with Christ in the pres- 
ent life. The Scriptures speak of no other. The 
apostles knew of no other, and imagination can invent 
no other. Let those who have been buried with 
Christ not forget this. And those who have not, let 
them think of this. 

3. " By which also he went and preached to the 
spirits in prison ; which sometime were disobedient, 
when once the long suffering of God waited in the 
days of Noah, w T hile the ark was preparing, wherein 
few, that is eight souls, were saved by water. The 
like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now 
save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 
but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is gone into 
heaven and is on the right hand of God ; angels and 
authorities and powers being made subject unto 
him." 1 Peter 3 : 19-22. 

This epistle was written to the dispersed of the 
Jerusalem church and other persecuted churches in 
Judea. Practical duties, the duties of every-day 
Christian life, is the apostle's theme in the third and 
fourth chapters. And in the midst of this theme he 
made this allusion to baptism, just as Paul did in the 
sixth of Rom. and the second of Col. 

In the Acts of Apostles, baptism is in the impera- 
tive and in immediate connection with conversion. 
But in the epistles baptism is in the allusory, and in 
immediate connection with behavior. We can there- 
fore look at the institution from two angles of vision. 
We can see it in its relation to the sinner, and the 
saint — to conversion and the new life that must follow 
to make it a blessing to the recipient. What then 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVERSY. 193 

could have been the motive of the text before us ? A 
well-warranted answer to this question would relieve 
the passage from much of its obscurity. Perhaps the 
parenthesis (not the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God) may explain the motive of the writer, inasmuch 
as the design of parenthesis is explanation. "Paren- 
thesis, a sentence, or certain words inserted in a sen- 
tence, which interrupt the sense or natural connec- 
tion of words, but serve to explain or qualify the 
sense of the principal sentence." To explain or 
qualify was the design of this parenthetic remark. 
In this remark there is a negative and an affirmative 
— not this, but that — not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God. This is a familiar form of speech, and 
always implies that the person spoken to is mistaken, 
namely, that that he supposes a thing to be what it is 
not. This is an apple, said a little boy. Not an 
apple, said the mother, but a pear. Alexander Camp- 
bell and Walter, Scott were traveling through a forest. 
Bro. Scott said, "This is a beautiful oak." "Not an oak, 
but a maple/' said Bro. Campbell. As Scott mistook 
a maple for an oak, so those to whom Peter wrote 
this epistle, or some of them, began to think and say 
baptism was a "putting away of the filth of the flesh." 
No tthis, said the apostle " but the answer of a good 
conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ," etc. 

We have a right to assume that such a misconcep- 
tion of baptism was entertained. For without this 
the apostle's parenthesis explains nothing, qualifies 
nothing, and the motive of the entire passage has no 
significance. The inference that such a sentiment 
13 



194 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

was at that time entertained is too clear to be doubt- 
ed. Such a belief would be subversive of the mean- 
ing of baptism, as expressed in the principal sentence, 
" doth also now save us." 

On the word " answer/' answer of a good con- 
science, translators have been much divided. Instead 
of " answer " the Living Oracles has the word " seek- 
ing," " seeking a good conscience." The German, 
by Martin Luther, has the word " covenant," " cove- 
nant of a good conscience.'' The German word bund 
is the same as our English covenant. At first view 
these different readings cannot be made to harmonize. 
But on a closer view they are not so far apart. There 
is a kinship between these words, when we accept the 
second definition of the word " answer." The first 
meaning must be rejected and the second may be 
adopted without violence to the text or the rules of 
interpretation. " Answer. To speak in return to a 
call or question.'' This is the first meaning of the 
word, and must be rejected. Among the many 
meanings of the word answer the second may express 
the thought of the writer, if it does not we must look 
for another. Answer, to be equivalent to ; to be ade- 
quate to, or sufficient to accomplish the object. This 
is a familiar use of the word u answer." We say, 
" this will answer the purpose." This will accom- 
plish the object. In this sense baptism may be "the 
answer of a good conscience," in a parenthetic, an 
explanatory sense, for in the principal sentence the 
apostle says, " baptism doth also now save us." 
Whatever the object may be adequate to, that object 
whether a good conscience toward God, is that object 
or not, i. e., that it will answer the end for which it 
was commanded. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVERSY. 1 ( J5 

« 

Living Oracle — u But the seeking of a good con- 
science." u Seeking. Act of attempting to find or 
procure." After a sinner has heard and believed the 
gospel and then coming to baptism, is not this — the 
seeking of a good conscience — the motive of his com- 
ing? 

After the eunuch had heard Philip preach Christ, 
he said, what hinders me to be baptized ? Was not 
the seeking of a good conscience toward God the 
motive of the question ? And is not this the experi- 
ence of all who have intelligently and in good faith 
been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ? Was 
not a good conscience toward God the disposing 
motive ? 

German translation — " Covenant. A mutual con- 
sent or agreement of two or more persons, a contract ; 
stipulation." When viewed in the sense of a covenant 
Jesus Christ proposes the covenant and man accepts 
it. Jesus says to all men, " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved." To comply with these 
stipulations, to believe and be baptized, is to accept 
the covenant in fact and in form, and the considera- 
tion of this covenant is embraced in the word of 
promise, " shall be saved ." Perhaps there are shades 
of thought in the original word which cannot be fully 
expressed by any one of the three. It may require 
answer, seeking, covenant, to exhaust the full mean- 
ing of the original text. However this may be, these 
different readings are rather as a choice of words 
than a difference in the sense of the text. 

With this exegesis of the parenthetic clause we 
will take in hand the principal sentence, u The like 
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, 



196 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVERSY. 

by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is gone into 
heaven," etc. 

Here again we are perplexed with different read- 
ings. Common translation — " The like figure. '' 
John Wesley's translation — " Whereunto the anti- 
type." Dr. Macknight — " By which (water), the 
antitype baptism. 9} Living Oracle — " The antitype 
immersion." Three have translated the text by 
antitype, one by figure. There are then three 
against one, and Dr. A. Clarke as commentator in a 
lengthy and labored criticism defends " antitype ,} 
as the correct rendering. Aside from these authori- 
ties there are other reasons for rejecting the word 
" figure " in the common text and accepting the word 
"antitype.'' Every antitype is a figure, but every 
figure is not an antitype. There are rhetorical 
figures, figures of speech, figures of men and things, 
which are neither types nor antitypes. And a mere 
semblance between, men and things does not make 
them types and antitypes. There may be points of 
analogy and of comparison wholly incidental without 
any premeditation or design. But a type is something 
premeditated, a symbol, a figure of something to come. 

Moses was a type of Christ. He said, " The Lord 
shall raise you up a prophet like unto me, him shall 
ye hear." Moses was the type of one to come. The 
paschal lamb was a type of Christ. "For even Christ 
our passoveris slain for us." These types were pre- 
meditated. God made them almost two thousand 
years before the antitypes. The Jews set forth this 
type for 1500 years at their annual passover feasts, 
and then with wicked hands furnished the antitype 
in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. They slew the 
antitypical lamb. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 197 

"When once the long-suffering of God waited in 
the days of Noah, while the ark w r as preparing, 
wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water, 
By which (water) the antitype baptism * * now 
saveth us also through the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ." This rendering by the Presbyterian Mac- 
knight, makes the sense of the passage quite clear. 
Wher^ God saved Noah by water, he made a type. 
And when God's own Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord 
said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved, '* he made the antitype, and the apostle Peter 
revealed the fact that these two salvations by water 
were related as type and antitype. If any reader is 
disposed to controvert the truth of this statement we 
refer him to the apostle. There are* three points of 
resemblance between the type and the antitype. 
The premature death of the old world was on account 
of sin. From this consequence Noah was saved by 
water through a divine ordinance — the ark. These 
features in the type were, 1. Sin. 2. Water. 3. 
Saved. The w r ord saved in the type meant sin — 
saved from sin. • Now we have an exact correspond- 
ence in the antitype. Sin, Baptism, (water) Saved. 
This, too, by a divine ordinance. But the authority 
by which these means and the end saved were ordain- 
ed is no part of the type or the antitype. 

By which (water) the antitype baptism now saveth 
us also. Now saveth us also. The words now and 
also must be understood if we would understand the 
apostle's meaning. Noiv has the sense of present 
time, and therefore means saved now, in the present 
tense. Here the word now precedes the word saved, 
just as in Heb. 5 : 9, the word eternal precedes the 
word "salvation." The apostle was not in this place 



198 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEKSY. 

speaking of the ultimate salvation, for that is in the 
future tense, but he was writing to the saints of their 
present salvation, of which we shall say more in 
another place. "Also now saveth us." " Also. 
Likewise ; in like manner." The word " also " refers 
back to the type, the eight souls saved by water. 

A fair exegesis of this much controverted passage 
requires that we refer it back to A. D. 64. # How 
would those to whom it was addressed understand it 
at that time ? 

Some of those to whom this epistle was written 
were doubtless of the converts to Christ on Penteeost. 
The dispersion of the church at Jerusalem could not 
have been longer than six or seven years after Pente- 
cost. "Now thfcy which were scattered abroad upon 
the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as 
far," etc. To these this circular was written. 
"Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers 
scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
Asia, and Bithynia.'' To these early converts, the 
apostle said, by which (water) the antitype baptism 
now saveth us. The only appreciable motive for this 
passage is that the saving significance of baptism was 
being denied. That there were some of Judaizing 
tendencies who thought that to be baptized was to 
put away the filth of the flesh. That this corre- 
sponded with the law of purification, for any man who 
had "touched the dead body of a man," or in any 
way had come into contact with a corpse. The last 
step in this ceremonial was, " And on the seventh day, 
he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes and 
bathe himself in water, and at even he shall be clean. ' ; 
See Num. 19th chapter. This Judaizing error was 
what the apostle aimed to correct, and to defend the 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 199 

true meaning of baptism which those early converts 
now in a state of dispersion understood. He put 
them in mind that no Jewish, no legal ceremonial, 
was the type of baptism. That the gracious salva- 
tion of Noah and the seven members of his family 
was the type of the sinner's salvation, by baptism. 
Therefore he says, u The like figure (antitype) bap- 
tism doth also now save us." This was a strong 
negation to the affirmation that baptism was the put- 
ting away the filth of the flesh, and this negation 
suggested the affirmation that baptism was the answer 
of a good conscience toward God. 

If we accept the words of Jesus Christ, " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; " and the 
words of the apostles, " Repent and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis- 
sion of sins; " it requires no very deep insight to 
understand what the apostle meant — but the answer, 
seeking, or covenant of a good conscience toward 
God." The removal of guilt from the conscience, 
the remission of sins is the antecedent and a good 
conscience toward God is the consequent. The inti- 
mate connection between being saved in the sense of 
remission of sins, and a good conscience toward God 
is too obviously plain to justify comment. The apos- 
tle wrote to correct a Jewish fallacy and to call atten- 
tion to that design of baptism which was in the begin- 
ning, of which the persecuted and dispersed members 
of the Jerusalem church could not be ignorant. In 
our present controversy there is no issue on baptism 
having any relation to ceremonial, fleshly impurities, 
nor yet whether baptism has any relation to a good 
conscience, for this in some vague and undefined 
sense is admitted. But the issue is on the words 



200 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

saved us — "baptism doth also now save us." This 
affirmation is practically denied by every Protestant 
denomination, and accepted by only one religious 
body, only one that will instruct sinners to " Repent 
and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins." The apostle affirms baptism also 
now saveth us. His apostolic authority should be an 
end of all strife. But he argues the point against 
some who would subvert the gospel of Christ. He 
called to his aid the first and the most impressive 
type on record. A type 2349 years before Christ, in 
defense of his position, i. e.. that baptism, theantitype, 
also now saveth us. How would the saints in A. D. 
64 have understood his statement as illustrated by 
the type ? and what bearing would this have had then 
on the heresy that baptism corresponded with a Jew- 
ish ceremonial ? This was the occasion of the passage 
according to the apostle's own explanatory remark, 
not this but that — ( u not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ ; 
who is gone into heaven and is on the right hand of 
God, angels and authorities and powers being made 
subject unto him." The apostle did not speak of 
baptism as though it were a mere abstraction. He 
brought it into direct association with the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ. With his glorification and his 
universal supremacy over all "authorities," angelic 
and human. This connecting thought is introduced 
with the word by. This preposition means agency — 
by the resurrection of Jesus Qhrist. Whatever saving 
efficacy there is in baptism is derived from the resur- 
rection and authority of Jesus Christ. For when he 
asserted for himself, " All power in heaven and in 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 201 

earth " he commanded the eleven by an emphatic 
therefore to " Go and teach the nations, baptizing 
them.'' The institution associated with the risen 
Christ possesses no important saving qualities. Nei- 
ther are its saving qualities derived from pious flesh, 
consecrated priestly fingers, ritual nor sacramental 
grace, nor yet from water, but from the command of 
the glorified Christ. 

By the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is gone 
into heaven and is on the right hand of God, this has 
given efficacy to baptism. Jesus Christ is not only 
the center of authority but he is the source and foun- 
tain of all that is saving. Faith, repentance, confes- 
sion, baptism, prayer, etc., all these derive their 
saving qualities from the divine paternity and person- 
ality of Jesus Christ. Therefore after the apostle 
had said baptism also now saveth us, he added by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostle was not 
careful lest he should influence the saints to place too 
high an estimate on baptism. He did not caution 
them against the outward, but to rely upon the inward. 
Dr. Adam Clarke concludes his comment on this 
passage with the following words : " We are, there- 
fore, strongly cautioned here not to rest in the letter, 
but to look for the substance. '' Where is the caution? 
Could words have given more importance to baptism 
than the language of the text? How could the apos- 
tle have expressed his own appreciation of the ordi- 
nance more strongly than to say God had typified it 
more than two thousand years in advance ? What 
more could he have said than "■ Whereunto the anti- 
type baptism also now saveth us?" and what could be 
more important than that which makes the conscience 
good God-ward. 



202 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Now how could the Dr. say, "We are, therefore, 
strongly cautioned here not to rest in the letter, 
but to look for the substance." The exact oppo- 
site is the fact in the case. This caution was a mis- 
representation of the apostle and a reproach to Jesus 
Christ. It implies that that which originated with 
Christ, and centered on Christ, received in the name 
of Christ with the gracious promise, "shall be saved," 
is not to be relied upon. Such cautions against 
placing any reliance upon baptism are almost univer- 
sal, both in the sermon and the administration. 
The present theories have no place for the words of 
Peter. They have lifted up their theological rule 
against the text, baptism also now saveth us. 

Let it be remembered that the apostle was not 
instructing the unbaptized, but the baptized. He 
was reminding the saints of what they heard on the 
subject when the gospel was first preached to them 
and giving them farther instruction in regard to its 
practical influence on their after-life. 

The deep underlying philosophy of the gospel is 
to remove sin — to destroy sin and save the sinner. 
To save the sinner from the past. To remove that 
terrible obstacle that lies between God and himself, 
and to prevent the recurrence of sin for the future. 
The latter is the chief design of the epistles of the 
apostles to the churches. In all these epistles the 
churches are addressed as saved. As in our text, 
" Whereunto the antitype, baptism, also now saveth 
us." J. W. If anything could influence to a holy 
life this realized as a present conviction would. It 
is not a supposable case that one who remembers his 
heart-conflict with sin — his mental strugglings 
through faith, repentance, and baptism for remission 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 203 

of sins would go back again into a life of sin. This 
is possible only in case of forgetfulness of the bitter- 
ness of sin. The same apostle who said, " baptism 
doeth also now save us," also said, " but he that 
lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, 
and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old 
sins." The figure " purge" is very descriptive. It 
means to cleanse, to clear from guilt or moral defile- 
ment as to purge one of guilt or crime ; to purge 
away sin, " He that lacketh these things" — the 
Christian virtues here enumerated — " is blind," 
spiritually blind, " and cannot see afar off" — cannot 
see things spiritual and eternal, why this want of 
progress in Christian excellence; "and hath forgot- 
ten that he was purged from his old sins." This is 
the answer. This is the apostle's reason for 
that lapsed, fallen condition, " and hath forgotten 
that he was purged from his old sins." When this is 
•forgotten. all the obligations and incentives to a life of 
holiness are also forgotten. The obligations of grati- 
tude, of affection for Christ and his church have 
ceased. There is a very important discrimination in 
the text. "Old sins " implies new sins. The word old 
in this place has the meaning of past or former sins 
— the sins from which the forgetful Christian was 
purged, or saved. We may substitute the word 
former or past for the word "old " and the reading 
would be just as perfect and the meaning would be 
the same. New implies something more recent than 
old, as olden time, old covenant, old dispensation. 
New sins then are sins after the old sins were forgiv- 
en. New sins are possible, if not there is a fallacy in 
the apostle's language. When the old sins have been 
purged, forgiven, there is no more " conscience of 



204 THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVERSY. 

sins" not of these. For the Mediator of the new 
covenant says, " I will be merciful to their unright- 
eousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remem- 
ber no more." 

The two passages, " Whereunto the antitype, bap- 
tism, also now saveth us," and u He that does not add 
to his faith, virtue, knowledge,- temperance, patience, 
godliness, brotherly kindness, charity, hath forgotten 
that he was purged from his old sins," are very inti- 
mately related, and their practical significance is the 
same. How important, in view of the life after this 
baptismal salvation, that the apostle should defend 
the true import of baptism against the fallacy that 
baptism was but a substitute for a mere Jewish ceremo- 
nial. A godly life and not conversion was the motive 
of both passages, as it was indeed the design of both 
the general epistles of Peter. 

What an important reminder was this ! Let me 
say to those who preach to baptized churches, "Go 
thou and do likewise." 

4. " Put them in mind to be subject to govern- 
ments, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good 
work ; to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, 
but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men ; for 
we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, 
deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in 
malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 
But after that the kindness and love of God our 
Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of 
righteousness which we have done, but according to 
his mercy he saved us by the washing of regenera- 
tion, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he shed 
on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour ; 
that being justified by his grace,'' etc. Titus 3 ; 1-7. 



THE EATTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 205 

In this part of the epistle Paul instructed Titus to 
put the churches in Crete in mind of the things here 
cited. And first in their former condition they lived 
just as other Gentiles lived, and that their present 
happy and exalted condition should be no cause to 
disrespect the civil government under which they 
were living. That their enlightened and saved con- 
dition was not on account of any personal righteous- 
ness, but on account of the mercy of God. To 
humble them and to impress them strongly with the 
conviction that they had nothing whereof to boast he 
said, " Not by works of righteousness which we have 
done, but acccording to his mercy he saved us, by 
the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost." That practical instruction was the 
design of the writer, is apparent at first view. That 
the obligations the saints owed to their civil rulers, 
(uncoverted Gentiles as they were), and their obliga- 
tions to all men, were the motives of this figurative 
allusion to their baptism. That this " washing of 
regeneration " is an allusion to baptism, is an uncon- 
tested fact. Luther and others have translated the 
word washing by the word bath. But "bath" is a fig- 
ure of speech as well as the word washing. The dif- 
ference in thought is only that the word bath has a 
stronger analogy with the mode of baptism than the 
word washing. This reminder is preceded by rela- 
tive duties and followed by personal duties, as the 
following : "J will that thou affirm constantly, that 
they which have believed in God might be careful to 
maintain good works." 

The love and mercy of God for a lost world, and 
saved by the washing of regeneration, and the renew- 
ing of the Holy Spirit, are the predicates of the pre- 



206 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

ceptive part of this passage. But we must not con- 
found the word saved with the word renewing. These 
are words of different import. Saved precedes renew- 
ing, and both are ascribed to their own and very dif- 
ferent causes. Neither should we confound the 
washing of regeneration with regeneration. That 
which is clean needs not to be washed. Washing 
implies the existence of the thing washed, whether 
hands or face or garments. The language implies 
that baptism is not regeneration, for then it wxmld be 
both the beginning and the end of regeneration. It 
also implies that regeneration is not independent of 
baptism, which is one of the means of regeneration, the 
consummating act. For as soon as Paul told Titus to 
say to the Oretians, you have been saved by the 
washing of regeneration, he said to him, you tell 
them to " maintain good works." Verse 8. 

To make baptism a part of the saving, regener- 
ating process may be doing violence to our times, 
but it does not misrepresent the times of the text 
— the times of Paul and Titus, for in their times 
there were no instantaneous regenerations — regenera- 
tions without means — regenerations without the wash- 
ing of regeneration. 

"Not by works of righteousness which we have 
done, but according to his mercy, he saved us by the 
washing of regeneration." Paul included both Titus 
and himself. When Paul told the story of his own 
salvation, before the " chief captain }} and his court, 
he said, u And one Ananias " said unto me," u And 
now why tarriest thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
Lord." We have a strange comment on this text by 
Dr. A. Clarke : " Baptism is only a sign, and there- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 207 

fore should never be separated from the thing signi- 
fied ; but it is a rite commanded by God himself, and 
therefore the thing signified should never be ex- 
pected without it." (Italics his.) Baptism is only a 
sign. The Doctor must have said this upon his own 
responsibility ; for neither Jesus Christ nor his apos- 
tles have said that baptism was only a sign. Neither 
have they said anything that can be tortured into 
such a meaning. When Peter said the antitype, 
baptism, that would have been a suitable place to 
have said also, it is only a sign. But he could not 
have said this without contradiction, for antitypes 
are facts not signs. In the absence of Scripture 
authority, to call baptism a " sign," it being called 
an antitype, is a direct issue. 

a Baptism is only a sign." If this was not the 
faith of all denominations, with but few exceptions, 
we would let these few remarks suffice. But it will 
be both profitable and instructive to inquire how 
came this view of baptism so general? If "bap- 
tism is a sign^ J is not a repetition of Scripture lan- 
guage, from whence is it ? It is one of the out- 
growths of the baptismal controversy. It is the op- 
posite extreme of Roman Catholic and Episcopalian 
ritualism. 

When this view of baptism, namely, that it was 
only a " sign " and a " seal " was invented, Popery 
and English Prelacy were the dominant parties, and 
both held the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 
" The Book of Common Prayer/' under the head, 
" Public baptism of infants," instructs the priest to 
say, " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this 
child is regenerated, and grafted into the body of 
Christ's church/' etc. xlfter this saying, the priest 



208 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 

is instructed to repeat the Lord's prayer, " all kneel- 
ing.'' Then he is to say again, " We yield thee 
hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath 
pleased thee to regenerate this infant,'* etc. At the 
close of the instructions for the " Public baptism of 
infants," we have the following note : " It is certain, 
by God^s word, that children which are baptized, 
dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly 
saved." If it is true that the affirmative implies its 
negative, " It is certain, by God's word/' that chil- 
dren, dying before they are baptized, although they 
have committed no actual sin, are undoubtedly lost. 
Both Popery and the Church of England gave their 
unqualified sanction to baptismal regeneration- With 
them to be regenerated was to be baptized. Under 
these overshadowing influences the English dissenters 
took their rise. Their theology was less ritualistic 
and more spiritual. Their opposition to baptismal 
regeneration was decided. But as they had to retain 
baptism as a New Testament ordinance, they were 
bound to give some reason for it. If baptism was 
not regeneration what was it ? What was its mean- 
ing — its use ? This question had to be settled, for 
those who were to be baptized would require some 
reason for the action. If one reason was denied an- 
other would have to be given. Under this controver- 
sial pressure the present evangelical reason for the 
ordinance was invented, rather as a necessity than a 
spontaneous conviction of Scripture teaching. Under 
these circumstances the dissenters' creeds, catechisms, 
and doctrinal standards, were drawn up, and the com- 
mentaries were written. In all these the meaning of 
baptism had to be expressed. The people had to be 
educated to another belief on this subject. Bap.- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 209 

tismal regeneration had to be exposed and abandoned 
as one of the errors of Romanism, still adhered to by 
the Church of England. Dr. A. Clarke, on Titus, 
verse 3, " by the washing of regeneration" says, 
" Undoubtedly the apostle here means baptism, the 
rite by which persons were admitted into the church ; 
and the visible sign of the cleansing, purifying influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit, which the apostle immedi- 
ately subjoins. Baptism is only a sign, and there- 
fore should never be separated from the thing signi- 
fied ; but it is a rite commanded by God himself, and 
therefore the thing signified should never be expected 
without it. By the renewing of the Holy Grhost, we 
are to understand not only the profession of being 
bound to live a new life, but the grace that renews the 
heart, and enables us thus to live, so the renewing 
influences are here intended. Baptism changes noth- 
ing. The grace signified by it, cleanses and purifies. 
They who think baptism to be regeneration, neither 
know the Scriptures nor the power of God ; ' there- 
fore they do greatly err.' ' This comment shows the 
controversial animus of the times. Extreme ritual- 
ism led to extreme mysticism. In the heat of this 
strife the present popular views of baptism were be- 
gotten and brought forth, namely, that baptism was 
" only a sign," that "baptism changed nothing," 
that therefore they who " thought baptism to be 
regeneration did greatly err." With some little mod- 
ification such is the language of every commentary, 
and the utterances of every creed. That baptism is 
not a reality, that the promises connected with it are 
not to be relied upon, that it is only a " sign " or 
"seal " of something, that it is not essential, etc. 
The great Quaker reformer and cotemporary, 



210 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 

George Fox, believed all this, and he reformed bap- 
tism, the signs, the seal, the non-essentials out of his 
church. Whether he or they were the more consist- 
ent, we submit to the reader. That baptism is regen- 
eration, is not more unscriptural than that baptism is 
only a sign. With the inspired text before us, we 
would as soon affirm the one as the other. We affirm 
neither, but deny both ; but with the apostle we say, 
" Not by works of righteousness which we have done, 
but according to his mercy he saved us, by the wash- 
ing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
Spirit ; which he shed on us abundantly through 
Jesus Christ. our Saviour; that being justified by his 
grace we should be made heirs according to the hope 
of eternal life." These were the things given in 
charge to Titus. Of these things Paul said, " Put 
them in mind." These were things they had passed 
through ; they were matters of experience. " Put 
them in mind,' 7 also of their past Gentile bitter ex- 
perience, when they were foolish, deceived, malicious, 
envious, hateful, and hating. Put them in mind that 
they be law-abiding, that they speak no evil, that they 
be not quarrelsome. Put them in mind that they be 
careful to maintain good works. Put them in mind 
that they are " saved," "justified." The details of 
Christain life were the apostle's design in this figura- 
tive allusion to baptism, called the washing of regen- 
eration. And unless this washing of regeneration is 
followed with a holy after-life, the object is defeated. 
And in that case it will not matter whether the man 
was baptized, as the word of the Lord directs, or 
whether he submitted to some substitute. The prac- 
tical significance of baptism is overlooked and lost to 
the church on account of the strife about subjects, 



I 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 211 

modes, and designs. And until the apostle's instruc- 
tions to the baptized are understood and applied, it 
will be a question of no importance whether the ordi- 
nance is perpetuated or not. 

The wide extremes on this baptismal issue are an 
over-literalizing on the one hand, and an over-spirit- 
ualizing on the other hand. Extreme literalizing 
has led to baptismal regeneration, and extreme spir- 
itualizing has led to a denial that baptism is the wash- 
ing of regeneration The one view is in as direct 
conflict with the word of God as the other. The 
issue between the parties is a good subject for a long 
fight. 

5. " Husbands love your wives, even as Christ 
also loved the church, and gave himself for it ; that 
he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of 
water by the word ; that he might present it to him- 
self, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or 
any such thing ; but that it should be holy and with- 
out blemish." Bph. 5 : 25, 26, 27. 

Here we have another figurative allusion to bap- 
tism. That the u washing with water " is an allu- 
sion to baptism is admitted by all. In the German, 
and many other translations, we have the word bath, 
" bath of water/' but this does not affect the sense of 
the passage. But why did the apostle insert this 
allusion to baptism in this place ? The epistle was 
addressed " to the saints which are at Ephesus." 
The composition of the epistle is didactic to the 17th 
verse of the 4th chapter, from that to the end it is 
exhortatory. Exhortation to Christian duty is the 
subject. What the apostle here said then on the 
washing with water, was to the baptized, to raise them 
to a higher plane of Christian life. He says Christ 



212 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

loved the church as an affectionate husband would 
love his wife and give himself for his wife ; so Christ 
had loved the church and given himself, consecrated 
himself, to her, that he might make of her a beautiful 
bride, worthy of himself. To accomplish this she 
had to be sanctified and cleansed, and that Christ 
had made provision both for her sanctification and 
her cleansing. This is the apostle's line of thought 
in general statement ; but we should have something 
more exegetical. 

Verse 26. " That he might sanctify and cleanse 
it with the washing of water by the word." The 
words sanctify and cleanse cannot have the same 
meaning in this place. These words must express 
two distinct ideas, or the apostle must be charged 
with a tautology. They do then express two things 
in the process of preparing the bride. These results 
are associated with two different causes, expressed by 
two prepositions, ivith and by. Sanctify ivith the 
washing of water, cleanse by the word. The words 
sanctify and cleanse are verbs expressing something 
to be done, " That he might sanctify and cleanse." 
For these ends he gave himself for the church, while 
as yet she was not. He gave himself for the church, 
while she was yet unsanctified and uncleansed, " That 
he might sanctify and cleanse it." This was the mo- 
tive of his giving himself for the church. Without 
this giving himself for these results there would have 
been no church, no separated, set-apart people. To 
sanctify, is to " separate, set apart, or appoint, to a 
holy, sacred, or religious use.'' This is both the Old 
and New Testament meaning of the word sanctify. 
To cleanse, is to "purify, to make clean by any pro- 
cess." That he (Christ) might sanctify and cleanse 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 213 

it with the washing of water by the word, is a won- 
derful grouping together. In its comprehensiveness 
it embraces all for which Christ gave himself; for 
the apostle subjoins, " That he might present it to 
himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, 
or any such thing." 

Baptism is the fact of which " the washing of 
water " is the figure. Literally, then, " the saints at 
Ephesus " were sanctified, set apart to Christ, with 
baptism. And this was his own appointment, for the 
text says, " That he might sanctify with," etc. This 
process of sanctifying was not a human device, but 
of Christ's own ordering. Those who believe and 
are baptized are sanctified, are set apart to Christ, are 
separated from those who do not believe the gospel, 
and are not baptized. This is the plain sense of his 
last commission. And it is the faith and practice of 
all the Christian world, that baptism is the sanctify- 
ing act. So strong and deeply rooted is this faith, 
that with the Pedo-baptists, the washing with water 
alone, without the faith, sanctifies the infant to Christ. 
But it is the object of this washing, rather than the 
action, that makes it sanctifying. He that gave him- 
self for the church said, " Go ye into all the world 
and preach the gospel unto every creature. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The sanc- 
tifying qualities of this washing are the promise shall 
be saved. On the first preaching of the gospel, they 
asked, What shall we do ? The preacher said, " Re- 
pent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name 
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," etc. This 
promise, for the remission of sins, is the same in an- 
other form — shall be saved. The sinner who is 
saved in the sense of the forgiveness of his sins, with 



214 THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEESY. 

this washing, is sanctified. In proof of this, we will 
offer what might be called the evidence of coincidence. 
The first time the word church occurs, as an existing 
fact, as the name of an organism, is in Acts 2 : 47 : 
"And the Lord added to the church daily the 
saved." This tense and reading, instead of the future 
tense, " shall be saved," is sustianed by the best 
authorities. The German, Dodridge, Wesley, and 
others, translate the passage as cited above. Dr. A. 
Clarke has a labored comment in defense of this ren- 
dering, from which we will cite a few sentences. * 

" And the Lord added to the church daily such as 
should be saved." On this the comment says, " The 
church was made up of saints ; sinners were not 
permitted to incorporate themselves with it." * * 
a Our translation of such as should be saved is im- 
proper and insupportable. The original means sim- 
ply and solely those who were then saved; those who 
were redeemed from their sins, and baptized into the 
faith of Jesus Christ. The same as those whom St. 
Paul addressed, Eph. 2 : 8, by grace are ye saved. 
So in Titus 3 : 5, according to his mercy he saved us, 
by the washing of regeneration, i^d in 1 Cor. 1 : 
18, we have the words, them who are saved." 

It is a very significant fact, that the first time the 
word church appears on the "record as an existing 
institution, it should be in this association of thought. 
" And the Lord daily added the saved to the church." 
This adding daily the saved is ascribed to the Lord 
just as sanctifying and cleansing is ascribed to Christ, 
who gave himself for the church, and as saved by the 
washing of regeneration, is said to be according to 
his mercy. The Lorc^ then does all this, but he does 
it by provisions, means, and agencies of his own 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 215 

appointment. To bring his purposes of mercy and 
grace to bear upon the subjects, there must be causes 
both directive and instrumental — a combination of 
agencies, both divine and human, formal and spirit- 
ual. When we look at the material of which the 
Lord formed his church, and has sustained her by a 
regular succession of members, and will continue to 
do so to the end, for the " gates of hell shall not 
prevail," we need not wonder that means had to be 
provided for both her sanctification and cleansing. 
If in his infinite wisdom he saw fit to appoint the 
washing with water and the word for these results, 
who has a right to say, What doest thou ? 

" That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the 
washing of water, by the word." The church at 
Ephesus understood this reminder. In the 19th 
chapter of Acts we have the origin of this church, 
and in A. D. 61, Paul wrote this epistle. The his- 
tory begins with the sanctifying of twelve men. 
4 'When they heard this they were baptized in the name 
of the Lord Jesus." They were set apart to Christ 
with the washing of water. Paul then preached 
Christ in the "synagogue;" "but when divers spoke 
evil of that way,'' "he separated the disciples," but 
continued until all Asia heard the word of the Lord, 
both Jews and Greeks. 

Paul separated the disciples. Before this they 
were sanctified, set apart to Christ. He " separated 
the disciples " from the Jews and Greeks. This 
formal separation made them a peculiar people — 
Christ's people in this great Gentile city — a people 
sanctified and cleansed. 

All men should be sanctified to Christ, but all men 



216 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

do not possess the required fitness. The Jewish law 
decided what might and what might not be sanctified 
to God. This was true of men and things. This is 
true in human society. The husband and wife are 
sanctified, the one to the other. Paul alludes to this 
well understood fact in 1 Cor. 7 : 14, " For the unbe- 
lieving husband is sanctified by the believing w T ife, 
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing 
husband," by the formality of marriage. All men 
and women cannot be sanctified in this social sense, 
for there are legal disqualifications in some cases, so 
in a religious sense there are moral disqualifications. 
Why were not all the Jews and Greeks in Ephesus 
sanctified "with the washing of water?" If the 
washing with water means baptism, as all admit, then 
the question is answered inasmuch as in all cases of 
scriptural baptism, hearing, believing, and repenting 
were required as prerequisites. To this there is not 
an exception expressed or implied. 

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the 
washing of water by the word. As the apostle was 
writing to saints this allusion to their own past expe- 
rience was plain and they would readily supply what 
was omitted in this brief statement. The sanctify- 
ing formalities in all cases are brief but significant. 
In some cases the consequences are for a limited time 
and in other cases they are for life, as in the formali- 
ty of marriage and the washing with water. • 

" Cleanse v "by the word." When this epistle 
was read to the church how quickly w^ould their 
recollections go back to the time when they heard 
the word, and affectionately believed the word. 
When the word wrought in them godly sorrow r , new 
aims of life, the abandonment of old habits. With 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVERSY. 217 

joyfulness they would remember when the word 
began its purifying influence upon their hearts and 
lives. The cleansing by the word began before the 
momentary sanctifying with the washing of water 
and continued after, even to the end of life. This is 
according to the commission by Matt., Teach, baptize, 
teach. The word commands the washing with water, 
but this command is for sanctification ; the cleansing 
is another thought. This thought is forcibly express- 
ed in Psalms 119 : 9, " Wherewithal shall a young 
man cleanse his way ? by taking heed thereto accord- 
ing to thy word." Cleansing by the word is a cor- 
rective process. It begins w T ith the purifying of the 
heart, by faith, and passes to the life, and corrects the 
old, impure, and sinful habits. Sanctifying with the 
washing of water according to the historic gospel, 
associates itself w T ith the forgiveness of sins, and 
cleansing by the w T ord with the forsaking of sin. To 
remind the saints at Ephesus strongly with this the 
apostle gave utterance to the passage. 

In this exhortation, beginning with chapter 4: 17, 
he says, "This I say, therefore, and testify in the 
Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles 
walk.'' "But ye have not so learned Christ ; If so 
be that ye have heard him." " That ye put off con- 
cerning the former conversation with the old man," 
" Wherefore putting away lying/ 9 "Are ye excited 
to anger do not therefore sin," " Let him that stole 
steal no more," "Let no corrupt communication 
proceed out of your mouth,'' "And grieve not the 
Holy Spirit of God/' "Let all bitterness " "be put 
away from you," "And be kind one to another," 
"And walk in love as Christ also hath loved us," 
" Let no man deceive you with vain words," "And 



218 THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of dark- 
ness, 5 ' " Wives submit yourselves unto your own 
husbands/' " Husbands love your wives." Why 
all this ? What is the predicate of this exhortation, 
and the exhortation which follows to the end of the 
epistle? It is this, Christ also loved the church, and 
gave himself for it. He gave his divinity, his human- 
ity, the labors of his life, and his life, and the humili- 
ations of the grave for his church. He gave the 
glories of his resurrection from the dead, his ascen- 
sion and glorification for his church, that he might 
sanctify and cleanse it, that he might present it to 
himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, 
or any such thing ; but that it should be holy and 
without blemish. How inapposite and meaningless 
all this would be to the unsanctified. 

In this passage, throw T n into the most important, 
practical, and preceptive connection, we have three 
distinct thoughts. 1. The disposing motive for 
giving himself for the church. Christ loved the 
church. 2. The necessary preparation of the church 
that she might answer his ultimate design. 3. 
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, 
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but 
that it should be holy and without blemish. A 
motive, means, and an end associate themselves with 
every enterprise, human or divine. And that which 
is first in design is always last in execution. "That 
he might present it to himself, not having spot." 
Spots are marks of defilement. "Or wrinkle.'' 
Wrinkles are marks of old age, of decrepitude. 
" Holy and without blemish." Spots and wrinkles 
would be blemishes on the person of a bride. The 
church at Ephesus in her make-up was full of spots 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 219 

and wrinkles. These blemishes had to be removed, 
that he might present it to himself a pure, youthful 
virgin bride. The impurities and uncomliness 
expressed by the figures, spot and wrinkle, had to be 
removed by moral processes well defined, by means 
that could be understood and remembered ; by that 
which could be heard, believed, and done ; by a sanc- 
tifying and cleansing, by a life-long moral and spirit- 
ual culture. 

Before the passage we have been considering, the 
apostle says, " For ye were sometime darkness, but 
now are ye light in the Lord : walk as children of 
the light ; (" For the fruit of the Spirit is in all good- 
ness, and righteousness and truth '*). Where this 
tree grows and is cultivated this fruit will appear. 
" Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord * * 
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of 
the Spirit, which is the word of God ; Praying 
always," etc. 

All these exhortations to practical purity and holi- 
ness of life are based upon the setting apart to Christ, 
the sanctifying by the washing with water. How 
unfortunate is our baptismal strife, not only as 
respects conversion, but also as respects Christian 
life. After the sinner has been baptized into the 
church of his own choosing, his baptism is soon for- 
gotten by himself, and perhaps he never hears a remin- 
der by his spiritual advisers. His baptism did not 
mean a personal consecration to Christ, whatever it 
may have meant as a door of entrance into a church 
party. It was not so in the beginning, as the 
reminders of the apostles to the churches suggest. 
Such reminders to the baptized are not heard from 
our church pulpits, nor found in the church literature 



220 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY, 

of our times. The practical import of baptism is lost 
with the depreciation of the ordinance, and therefore, 
there are no incentives and there can be no incen- 
tives to Christian excellence deduced from it. Non- 
essentials cannot be the predicates of Christian duties, 
honors, or privileges. 

We have often heard those apostolic reminders to 
the baptized from the pulpits and in debate used for 
controversial purposes. But let me ask the reader, 
has he ever known one to be carried into the pulpit 
or the religious press, prompted by the same motive 
of Paul and Peter, to give them present application 
to the duties of a holy life ? If not, then one of the 
divinely ordained means of Christian edification is 
lost, and can be restored only by restoring the insti- 
tution to its New Testament status. 

Dear brethren, let me entreat you, do not neg- 
lect your cleansing. Let the word of the Lord have 
its purifying power upon you. Do you hope to 
belong to the bride, the Lamb's wife? Then remem- 
ber that you must be without u spot or wrinkle.'' 
Remember that you must have no blemishes. Christ 
contemplates taking his bride into the reception 
room. He will introduce her to his Father. 

She must be holy and without blemish. She must 
be sanctified. She must be purified. " And every 
man that has this hope in him purifieth himself, even 
as he is pure." 

6. " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, 
and that there be no divisions among you ; but that 
ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and 
in the same judgment. For it hath been declared 
unto me by them which are of the house of Chloe, 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEESY. 221 

that there are contentions among you. Now, this I 
say, that every one of you saith I am of Paul ; and I 
of Apollos ; and I of Cephas ; and I of Christ. Is 
Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for you ? or 
were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? I thank God 
that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius ; 
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own 
name.'' 1 Cor. 10 to 15. 

Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for you ? 
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? This was 
a baptismal reminder to the church at Corinth. The 
epistle is addressed, " Unto the church of God, which 
is at Corinth, to them which are sanctified in Christ 
Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place 
call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, both 
theirs and ours." This gives to this reminder of which 
we now speak a very broad application. To them 
which .are sanctified. We shall here make some 
remarks on the word sanctified, reserved for this 
place. 

Nothing has done more to darken the divine coun- 
sel than to use Scripture words in an unscriptural 
sense. Sanctified in its present sense means the 
highest round in the ladder of Christian perfection — 
a state of absolute sinless perfection. We raise no 
issue on that desirable state, we only assume tfaa the 
word sanctified does not mean such a state of p Sec- 
tion in personal holiness. 

The epistle was addressed to the " sanctified," but 
immediately the apostle charges the sanctified with 
divisions and contentions. And in the third chapter 
he speaks of them as carnal, " For while one saith, I 
am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not 
carnal?" Divisions, contentions, and carnality are 



222 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

not compatible with sinless perfection. But those 
subjected to these censures are by the inspired apos- 
tle said to be sanctified. The word sanctified refers 
to state — not character. In the fifth and sixth chap- 
ters of this same epistle the apostle charges this 
church with great improprieties, as " brother goeth 
to law with brother." " Nay you do wrong, and 
defraud, and that your brethren. '* " And such were 
some of you ; but ye were washed, but ye are sancti- 
fied, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord 
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God," Notwith- 
standing all the disorders charged upon the church 
the apostle still speaks of them as a sanctified people. 
Even the incestuous man, though fallen and excluded, 
was still in a sanctified, a justified state ; therefore, 
when he repented the apostle commanded the church 
to " confirm their love to him." " To whom ye for- 
give anything, I forgive also." 

The sanctified state of the church is admitted by 
the writer, but the church life did not correspond 
with her high and exalted condition. They did not 
honor their relation to Christ as a people set apart 
to Christ. They did not need more sanctification, 
or a re-sanctification ; but they needed repentance 
and more righteousness. They needed less conten- 
tion, and more brotherly love ; more respect for 
Christ, .and less partisan affection for those who 
were only ministers of Christ by whom they believed. 
To correct these great aberrations, the apostle put 
the questions before cited : Is Christ divided ? 
Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in 
the name of Paul ? A question may be a negation 
or it may be an affirmation. But these questions 
are both a negation and an affirmation. The an- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 223 

swers would be simply this : Christ is not divided. 
He takes no sides with either party ; no, not with 
the party that says, and I of Christ, for they said, 
and I of Christ in a party sense. Christ was cru- 
cified for you. He was crucified for one ; he was 
crucified for all. All have an equal and a mutual 
interest in his cross. You were all baptized in one 
name, in the name of Christ. This being so the 
cause of their divisions was a reproach to the cross 
of Christ and to the name of Christ. For this 
reason the apostle said: " I thank God that I bap- 
tized none of you, but Crispus and Gains ; lest any 
should say that I baptized in mine own name. And I 
baptized also the household of Stephanas ; besides I 
know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ 
sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel . ' ' Those 
who oppose the institution as it is, refer to this lan- 
guage to disparage the ordinance ; but the writer said 
these things to rebuke those who had abused both 
the crucifixion of Christ and the baptism he had 
himself commanded in his name. Those who had 
made both the cross of Christ and baptism in his 
name of no one-making effect. For, if there is no 
unifying significance in the cross of Christ and bap- 
tism, then were the apostle's questions without mean- 
ing, and his exhortation to unity was placed upon the 
wrong predicate. I thank God that I baptized none 
of you, but Crispus and Gains ; lest any should say 
that I had baptized in mine own name. The apostle 
thanked God that those who said, " I of Paul," had 
not even a pretext to say / of Paul. In this there 
is an important implication, namely, that the name in 
which they were baptized implied leadership, as did 
the person that was crucified, laid down his life for 



224 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

them. As neither was true in regard to himself, he 
declined the honor / of Paul, Paul was not willing 
that Christ should be robbed of the honor due to him, 
to gratify his own love of demagogism, or that of his 
fellow- apostles, if they had any such aspirations. 
Ambitious men would have said, this is our oppor- 
tunity. 

Is it not stange that the great apostle to the Gen- 
tiles should have lifted up baptism and have placed 
it by the side of the cross of Christ ? And that 
too for the purpose of rebuking incipial divisions, and 
promoting unity among brethren ? It is surpassing 
strange, when we look at the ordinance from the pres- 
ent stand-point of appreciation. Do those wise heads 
and good hearts who are now engaged so earnestly 
and so prayerfully in the same work, do so ? Did 
the Evangelical Alliance do so ? Does the Christian 
Union do so? Does the Baptist Union do so? 
Does the Church Union do so ? Paul did so. He 
said to the divided brethren at Corinth, in the lan- 
guage o'f severe irony, or were ye baptized in the 
name of Paul? 

Baptized in the name of Christ is not now a re- 
buke to division, neither is it admitted into the basis 
of denominational union. Why did not the apostle 
substitute the word believed for the word baptized, in 
his third question ? Then the th^ee questions would 
read : Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for 
you ? or bfelieved you in the name of Paul, alias 
Christ ? If this was the question, the present union 
plea would have an apostolic, a divine basis. Then 
we might compromise baptism as we pleased, or strike 
it out of the union programme, on good authority. 
But for some reason the apostle when reproving divi- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 225 

sion and pleading for union, put baptism in the same 
place where the present union advocates, both 
preachers and editors, put faith. While Paul and 
they are doing the same work for the same results, 
they do not work by the same means. The one 
plead for union on the ground that the divided 
parties had been baptized in the name of Christ. 
The other is pleading for union on the ground that 
the divided parties believed in the name of Christ. 
These unions, if both were possible, would not be 
the same union, inasmuch as they would not rest 
upon the same basis. But the present proposed 
union is radically defective, and practically impos- 
sible. It would be a union without an inductive. 
Faith is not an initiative. Faith cannot introduce 
into any form of organized society, human or divine. 
It may be the disposing motive for application, but it 
cannot be the door of entrance. Faith is latent, 
internal, and unknowable, until it comes to the sur- 
face. Besides, a mere profession of faith secures no 
rights, neither does it commit a man to anything. 
"Nevertheless among the chief rulers also, many 
believed on him ; but for fear of the Pharisees they 
did not confess him." John 12: 42. " Then said 
Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye con- 
tinue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.' ' 
John 8 : 31. A German or a Frank may believe 
that there is a better country, climate, soil, and gov- 
ernment, but that will not make him a citizen of this 
or any other country. All forms of government, and 
every social compact, human and divine, must have 
some forms of induction. Something that will con- 
fer rights and secure rights, and mutually commit the 
parties to each each. A simple belief in Christ or 
15 



226 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the king, in the church or in the state, cannot do this. 
It would not be safe for the state or the church to 
accept applicants on the simple profession of belief 
in the excellence of the institution. So the experi- 
ence of all human organisms have decreed, and so 
the wisdom of God has decided, both in the law and 
the gospel. " A foreigner and a hired servant shall 
not eat thereof/ ' " And when a stranger shall so- 
journ with thee, and will keep the passover to the 
Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let 
them come near and eat it ; and he shall be as one 
born in the land ; for no uncircumcised person shall 
eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is home* 
born, and unto the stranger that sojourn eth among 
you." Ex. 12th chap. One law of induction to all. 
The foreigner's faith in God and his religion could 
not make him one with his people. Neither could 
his people set aside God's appointed law of induction ; 
neither an approved faith nor character could bring 
a foreigner, hired servant, or a stranger, into the 
Jewish inclosure. The law was as exacting as God 
could make it, and parental delinquency was not 
winked at by the founder of this institution. " And 
it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord 
met him (Moses) and sought to slay him. Then Zip- 
porah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of 
her son, and cast it at his feet. So he let him go : 
then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of 
the circumcision." Gershom, the son of a Midian- 
itish woman, could not be in covenant with God with- 
out circumcision, that bloody rite of induction so 
extremely revolting to parental affection. No laws are 
more inflexible than the inductive. Their language is, 
submit ; come in by the door or remain without. So 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 227 

it was under Moses and so it is under Christ. Ac- 
cording to the records it would be just as easy to find 
an uncircumcised man, whether " home-born, " "for- 
eigner," u or stranger," in covenant with God, under 
the law of Moses, as to find an unbabptized Chris- 
tian, in covenant with Jesu.^ Christ, under the gospel. 
If any should doubt the truth of this statement, or 
the soundness of their own title, let them examine 
the records. Let them make this a matter of personal 
concern. Let not their sympathies for the heathen, 
infants, idiots, quakers, or infidels, of unblamable 
character, betray them into a disrespect for the au- 
thority of Jesus Christ. And let not a denomina- 
tional union, based on human expediency and a mor- 
bid charity, lead them away from the commandments 
of the Lord. 

A profession of faith in Christ, of all that Christ 
was, is, and evermore shall be, cannot, and was not in 
apostolic times the basis of Christian unity. And 
when baptism is ignored, or held with a feeble, com- 
promising grasp, there is no inductive into the u king- 
dom of (rod and of Christ/' and the words of Christ 
to Nicodemus, " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God," have no 
meaning, as there is nothing to which they can be 
applied. Indeed, a very large portion of the New 
Testament teachings would have no doctrinal or 
practical importance, and should be marked with the 
word u obsolete. }i Who will do it? 

But some of our union pleaders have laid another 
foundation for what they call Christian union. They 
propose to reconstruct sectism on the ground of Chris- 
tian character alone. This plan is as unfeasible as 



228 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the former. The advocates of this device concede 
their weakness, i. e., that they cannot make the bad 
good, nor yet the good better ; for those who are to 
be admitted into this new fellowship of the saints, 
must, as a condition of acceptance into this new 
order, give satisfactory evidence of an approved 
Christian character. If they could acquire this un- 
der the dominion of sectarianism, why not let them 
remain where they are ? Will God require more of 
any Christan than a good Christian character? or, 
is this new Christian union to be a select society, 
somewhat on the plan of the Masonic brotherhood? 
And what of the sinners fresh from the forest of 
humanity ? Must not these also show their creden- 
tials of a good Christian character ? Character be- 
ing the basis of the union, may not the men of the 
world, with little faith or no faith, on the ground of 
an unblamable life, claim admittance ? And what 
will they do with sinners and for sinners, like Mary 
Magdalene, or Saul of Tarsus ? Will they say to 
such, " Our church union is for saints only, go wash 
you, make you clean, then come?" This union con- 
cedes its own impotency. It admits that it possesses 
no regenerating power, that it has no " washing of 
regeneration" for the unclean, that whatever they 
may do for themselves, or what Jesus Christ or the 
Holy Spirit may do for them, must be done before 
they come into the union. 

When Jesus Christ said, u Upon this rock will I 
build my church,'' w T hen he originated his union, 
(unity), he said, " I come not to call the righteous, 
but sinners to repentance. The whole need not the 
physician, but they that are sick." He said, " Come 
unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 229 

will give you rest." And in his last invitation he 
said, " And whosoever will, let him take of the water 
of life freely." He invited the publicans and the 
harlots to come in. He commanded the gospel to be 
preached to every creature, with the promise that, 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
Jesus Christ had confidence in the moral and spiritual 
forces of his gospel to convert the chief of sinners, 
to purify and beautify his after life, and make him 
"a new creature." The after history of the preach- 
ing of the gospel, and the great moral revolution 
achieved by it, is but a practical proof and illustra- 
tion of its reforming and saving power. This is for- 
cibly expressed by Paul, in 1 Thess. 1 : 9 : " For 
they themselves (the unconverted) shew of us (the 
apostles) what manner of entering in we had unto 
you (the church), and how ye turned from idols to 
serve the living and true God." Why the difference 
in the results then and now ? The following will an- 
swer this question. " For this cause also thank we 
God without ceasing ; because when ye received the 
word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it 
not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the 
word of God, which effectually worketh also in you 
that believe." 1 Thess. 2: 13. The same results 
have always followed when the word of God is received 
as it was then. The drifting away from the word of 
God has destroyed that unity which was in the be- 
ginning. This is both' expressed and implied by 
every union movement, and every new basis sub- 
mitted for a reunion. But the unity affected by 
Jesus Christ can never be restored on any of the 
human platforms now submitted. The only divinely 
ordained standard of faith is a personal " confession " 



230 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

that Jesus Christ is the " Son of the living God." 
This is confessing Christ before men, and precedes 
baptism. And the only standard of an approved 
character before God is a life conformable to the 
precepts of the gospel, and this is subsequent to bap- 
tism. And as long as the baptized in the name of 
Christ hold the faith and maintain this character, they 
are in the divine unity. In this union, baptism 
stands between the faith and the character. It is a 
formal, visible confession of the faith, and an implied 
pledge to maintain the character. The place assigned 
to baptism makes it a significant induction. When 
the unity in the church at Corinth was threatened, 
Paul asked the divided parties, u Is Christ divided ? 
was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in 
the name of Paul ?" This ironical reference to their 
faith in the cross of Christ, and their having been 
baptized in the name of Christ, had its intended 
effect. We may assume that it healed their divisions ; 
for in his second epistle Paul made no allusion to 
their divisions and contentions. " Or were ye bap- 
tized in the name of Paul?" was a most salutary re- 
minder. How quickly would this take them back to 
the time when they heard Paul reason in their syna- 
gogue, and testifying that Jesus was Christ, and when 
many of the Corinthians heard, believed, and were 
baptized. There is more unifying power in the three 
short questions, " Is Christ divided ? was Paul cruci- 
fied for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of 
Paul?" than in all the union speeches made at the 
last Evangelical Alliance. We commend this pass- 
age to the Christian Union, to the Baptist Union, 
and the Church Union, and all who may be sick of 
the carnality of sectarianism. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 231 

Brethren, beware. "Let no man glory in men." 
7. " For ye are all the children of God, by faith 
in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal. 3: 
26, 27. The last sentence is in the form of a re- 
minder to the " churches of Galatia.'' To under- 
stand what the writer meant by this reminder, " For 
as many of you" we must know what the subject 
was he had in hand in this part of the epistle. This 
will have to be gathered from the connection, or from 
the general scope of the epistle. It is quite evident 
that the leading thought in the mind of the apostle 
was to arrest the Judaizing tendencies of the 
churches of Galatia. He said to them, " Oh, fool- 
ish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye 
should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus 
Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among 
you ? This only would I learn of you. Received 
ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the 
hearing of faith ? Are ye so foolish ? having begun 
in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh ? 
Verses 1, 2, 3. This reproof sets forth the error 
to be corrected. In the 24th verse he referred to 
all the law could do for a Jew. " Wherefore the 
law was our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, 
that we might be justified by faith." This was 
the design of the law, and having brought them 
to Christ it could do no more for them. But 
after that faith is come, we are no longer under 
the schoolmaster. u For ye are all the children of 
God, by faith in Jesus Christ." Childhood was a 
new relation between God and the Jew. A relation 
possible only on the principle of faith in Christ 
Jesus. In the following chapter the apostle shows 



232 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

that the Jew, under the law, was in a state of mi- 
nority, and only a servant. " But when the fullness 
of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made 
of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them 
that were under the law, that we (Jews) might re- 
ceive the adoption of sons. And because ye are 
sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into 
your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou 
art no more a servant but a son, and if a son then an 
heir of God through Christ." Such is the reading of 
the context, both before and after this allusion to the 
baptism of the churches of Galatia. Their having 
been baptized into Christ was something they knew, 
and could call to mind. "For as many of you as 
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. " 
Put on Christ is something peculiar to baptism. 
This is affirmed of all that are the children of God 
by faith in Christ, namely, that having been baptized 
into Christ they had put on Christ. To be baptized 
into Christ is a generic, all comprehensive act of 
submission to Christ. The meaning of baptism does 
not terminate upon itself, is not consummated within 
itself. It involves every specific duty in the after 
life. Therefore, this style of speech is not used in 
relation to any other act of submission to Christ. 
Neither faith, repentance, prayer, nor praise is put- 
ting on Christ. In baptism, the believer assumes all 
the personal relations of Christ to God and man. 
He assumes all his official relations, Jesus, Christ, 
Lord, and the only Saviour of men. As soon as a 
man is baptized into Christ, he is quickly held 
responsible for all that Christ is, for all he claimed 
to be, and all that is awarded to him by prophets 
and apostles. Every adversary will hold him respon- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 233 

sible for the defense. His former mere verbal pro- 
fessions of faith now become decisive. They assume 
definiteness. All men, saints and sinners, regard the 
man that has been baptized into Christ as a self- 
committed man, a man pledged to Christ, one that 
has espoused the cause of Christ, his interests and 
his honors. 

There was a peculiar appropriateness at this time 
and place to say, u For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' ' Many of 
the Jewish converts to Christ were premeditating a 
going back to circumcision and the law. These 
Judaizing influences were too strong for Peter to 
withstand, and Barnabas was carried away with them, 
but Paul withstood them to the face. He said, " Be- 
hold I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, 
Christ shall profit you nothing.' ■ " Christ has be- 
come of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are 
justified by the law ; ye are fallen from grace.'' " I 
would they were even cut off which trouble you." 
" For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth 
anything, nor uncircumcision ; but faith, which work- 
eth by love." The time of the law, their old school- 
master, had expired, and he had laid down his rule. 
How important that the " churches of Galatia,'' where 
these influences to apostasy from Christ were prevail- 
ing, should be reminded that they were now the chil- 
dren of God, by faith in Christ, that they had put 
on Christ in their baptism, that they had committed 
themselves to Christ, that they had espoused his 
cause, which contemplated to abolish all fleshly dis- 
tinctions, and to make all, both Jews and Gentiles, 
one in Christ. 

"For as many of you as have been baptized into 



234 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew 
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's 
seed and heirs, according to the promise. '' Here 
are three things affirmed of all who had believed in 
Christ, who had been baptized into Christ, who had 
put on Christ. 1. They were all one in Christ. 2. 
They were Abraham's seed. 3. They were heirs 
according to the promise. These were the three 
great results inclosed in the promise God made to 
Abraham. " And the Scripture, foreseeing that God 
would justify the heathen through faith preached 
before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee 
shall all nations be blessed. So then, they which are 
of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. v To 
bless the nations, to make them " one in Christ/' was 
a divine foreordination, and the means by which 
these results should be accomplished were as much 
foreordained as were the ends, as said the apostle 
James, in the great Jerusalem council, on the same 
subject, " Known unto God are all his works, from 
the beginning of the world." All the means, 
agencies, and instrumentalities, the most approximate 
as well as the most remote, of which we cannot now 
speak, to accomplish these ends were foreordained, 
for God would not foreordain results and leave the 
means by which he would accomplish them contin- 
gent. The faith in Christ, the baptism into Christ, 
the putting on Christ, are as much involved in the 
promise, " In thee shall all nations be blessed," as 
the results, " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there 
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor 
female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 235 

ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
according to the promise. The disparity which ex- 
isted between the parties here named was great, and 
had to be removed before they could be one. There 
was no social nor religious equality between them. 
These obstacles to unity and peace could be removed 
by divine interposition only. Human wisdom was 
utterly helpless then, as it is now, to make of the 
twain one new man and so make peace. The truth 
of this is strikingly illustrated in the power and ob- 
stinacy of Protestant sectism. All so nearly one, 
and all desiring to be one, and yet they cannot be 
one. The one-making power of the primitive gospel 
was brought to the severest test. It had to encoun- 
ter strong resistance both from without and from 
within. The first resistance was from the Jews. 
But when Peter rehearsed his call to Cesarea, and 
what had transpired there, the Jews u held their 
peace and glorified God.'' Afterwards the unity was 
threatened at Antioch, by some believing Jews, but 
these troubles were referred to the apostles and the 
elders at Jerusalem, and the unity was undisturbed. 
In the church at Corinth* there were divisions, but 
Paul, in an epistle, asked them, " Is Christ divided ? 
was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in 
the name of Paul ? After that we hear no more of 
their divisions. So in the churches of Gralatia there 
were schismatical elements at work, but the ever- 
watchful Paul took them in hand, and reminded them 
of their faith in Christ, and their baptism into Christ, 
and the oneness that followed between the Jews and 
Greeks. For several hundred years the unity was 
unbroken, i <?., there were no separate communities, 
no Christian sects. Sectism and the baptismal con- 
I 



236 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

troversy have very nearly a simultaneous beginning, 
at least the seeds and germs of the former existed in 
the latter. 

The early tendencies to division tried the strength 
of the divine one-making forces, so that an apostle 
could say, exultingly, " But now, in Christ Jesus, ye 
who sometime were far off, are made nigh by the 
blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath 
made both one." The truth of this is admitted by 
the civil history of the world, and upon no other 
ground can we account for the early triumphs of the 
gospel, but by admitting the oneness and co-opera- 
tion of the early disciples. When we think of the 
long-standing animosities, having their origin in 
causes of which we know but little now, we can but 
wonder at the fewness and simplicity of the means 
employed to bring about such results. There was 
power in the simplicity of Christ. God, and Christ, 
and the Holy Spirit were in it, and would be in it 
now as then. Paul said to the church at Corinth, to 
heal existing divisions, " Is Christ divided? was Paul 
crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name 
of Paul ?" "I could not speak unto you as spir- 
itual, but as unto carnal." But to the churches of 
Galatia he said, to prevent division, " For ye are all 
the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For 
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ 
have put on Christ." These two, faith and baptism, 
with their far out-reaching implications, brought 
them into this filial oneness, and the remembrance of 
these, as they heard them preached in full detail, 
would conserve their unity, and all the honors and 
blessedness of being Abraham's children and heirs 
according to the promise. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEESY. 237 

That to which Paul assigned the most approximate 
place in the unity of his times, is not now permitted 
to occupy any place in the unity of the present times. 
This issue between those who now preach and pray 
against division and in behalf of union, should be 
inquired into ; for there is a palpable contradiction 
between them and Paul. And it is a question for 
the reader to decide, which should be accepted as 
authority. An apostle once said, "We (apostles) are 
of God ; he that knoweth God heareth us ; he that 
is not of God heareth not us. ' Hereby know we the 
spirit of truth and the spirit of error/ ' 1 John 4: 
6. To conserve the unity among the churches of 
Galatia, Paul pressed no other considerations than 
faith in Christ and baptism into Christ. Faith in 
Christ involved all that Christ was personally, 
officially, and mediatorially. Baptism into Christ 
involved all that Christ had commanded and prom- 
ised. " For ye are all the children of God by faith 
in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ have put on Christ." " And if 
ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs, 
according to the promise.'' 

8. " I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, be- 
seech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation where- 
with ye are called ; with all lowliness and meek- 
ness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in 
love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit 
in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one 
Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your 
calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God 
and Father of all, who is above all, and through 
all, and in you all." Eph. 4: 1-6. Baptism in 
this place is not a " reminder/' but is one of seven 



238 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

items in the bond of peace. The bond of peace, as 
here submitted, is an apostolic entreaty to the 
" saints " at Ephesus to " keep " the peace. Having 
attained the peace, the " prisoner of the? Lord 9} be- 
sought them to keep the peace. This entreaty would 
be inapplicable now to many who (jlaim saintship. 
The word keep implies present possession. The lan- 
guage of the entreaty would have to be revised by 
striking out the word keep and inserting the word 
attain. Then it would read endeavoring to attain 
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This 
fact is painfully suggestive. To say to present evan- 
gelical parties, u Endeavoring to keep the unity of 
the Spirit in the bond of peace," would be vio- 
lence to the truth ; for what we have not we cannot 
keep. This self-evident truth is often disguised by 
efforts to prove that all the mutually recognized 
sects are one in all the seven items of this inspired 
bond of peace. There were efforts made in this di- 
rection, in the last meeting of the Evangelical Alli- 
ance, which are worthy of mention here. 

" COMMUNION OF SAINTS. 

" The communion of the church militant with the 
church triumphant is the symbol of the union of 
all believers on earth, all the baptized in the mysti- 
cal body of the law. * * Still the communion 
exists in reality, because the baptized are, after all, 
one in Christ. * * All Christians are, therefore, 
of one family, and the problem before them is to 
express by their conduct the oneness which has 
been divinely created. This exhibition of Christ's 
church, as already one, is a leading Pauline idea. 
With Paul the unity of Christ's church is present, 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 239 

not future, and his effort is to bring his fellow- 
Christians, not to create the oneness but to appre- 
hend it. Thus he writes to the Galatians : ' As 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ 
have put on Christ. They are neither Jew nor 
Greek, etc., for they are all one in Christ Jesus." 
—Eliphalet Nott Potter, D. D. 

On these extracts we remark : 1. That the 
speaker assumed the real oneness of all the parties 
represented in the Alliance. 2. He made this one- 
ness to consist in this, i. e., that all the represented 
parties were baptized, and therefore one. He says, 
" All the baptized in the mystical body of the law." 
Again, " The baptized are, after all, one in Christ." 
And, again, the speaker quoted Paul, " As many of 
you as have been baptized into Christ have put on 
Christ/' In no place did the speaker associate 
faith in Christ with baptism into Christ. In citing 
Paul, he severed a most intimate connection, to prove 
that his views of the oneness of the church was a 
Pauline idea. " For ye are all the children of God, 
by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as 
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 
This is a " Pauline idea " of oneness in Christ, and 
not baptism alone. If he had quoted Paul in full, 
the basis of his oneness would have been seen at first 
view to be an -u^-Pauline idea, and Paul would have 
left a large majority of the Alliance out of the union. 



cc If the Evangelical Alliance were a new institu- 
tion, it would be none the less excellent, but in name 
only has it the stamp of novelty. The church of 
God has never been otherwise than one. One Lord, 



240 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, is 
applicable to all ages/' — Rev. James Davis, British 
Secretary, in New York Tribune Extra, No. 12. — 
The Evangelical Alliance Complete, Oct. 13, 1873. 
These extracts from the speeches before the Evan- 
gelical Alliance, by Dr. Nott Potter, and Dr. James 
Davis, concede the essentiality of the " one baptism 9> 
to unity, oneness in Christ. But both affirmed that 
the oneness was " not to be created/' that it did now 
" exist," and only needed to be " exhibited," "appre- 
hended." If this is not true, the self chosen title, 
Evangelical Alliance, is a misnomer, therefore they 
could do nothing less than affirm the present oneness 
of the church. In defense of this position they gave 
great prominence to the one baptism. " The church 
of God," said James Davis, " has never been other- 
wise than one — one Lord, one faith, one baptism," 
etc. However the church may have been, or may 
now be one on the one Lord, and the one faith, she 
has not always been one on the one baptism ; there- 
fore, when he says this oneness is u applicable to all 
ages," he said what the logic of facts proves to be 
untrue. That the affusion of an infant subject, who 
has not one mental conception of God, or of Christ, 
or of the Holy Spirit, of sin, of holiness, of heaven 
or hell, and the immersion of an instructed believer, 
are one baptism, is a contested point, and on this the 
church has never been one, but always two. Even, 
if Jesus Christ had commanded both, they could not 
be one baptism. The difference between the two 
classes of subjects would make essentially two, and 
not one baptism, inasmuch as the infant subjects do 
not and cannot bear the same relation to the one 
faith and the one Lord, of the one body, and the 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 241 

one Spirit, that the believing subject does. The 
infant subject can neither believe in the one Lord nor 
obey him. To him it were all one if there were no 
Lord, body, Spirit, or hope, for he can recognize 
neither, and is incapable of enjoyment or influence 
from either. While the affirmative of all this is true 
of every believing subject, the two actions, affusion 
and immersion, are sufficiently dissimilar to make 
them two ; but the most radical and irreconcilable 
differences exist between the subjects. Such dissim- 
ilarities cannot be identities. No law, custom, or 
authority, can make them so. Reason must be stul- 
tified, common sense must be overborne by some im- 
posing plausibilities or interested motives, before any 
one can gravely affirm that Pedo-Baptists and Bap- 
tists are one in the one baptism of Eph. 4 : 5. 

The Evangelical Alliance then asserted that all the 
denominations, honored with the right of representa- 
tion, immersionists included, were one, but all did 
not apprehend their oneness. The object of the Alli- 
ance, if it has any well-defined object, is this, i. e 9 , 
to " apprehend " and " exhibit " this " oneness " by 
conduct, their bearing towards each other. If this 
is not accepted as the true state of the case, it cannot 
be on the ground of prejudice ; for who would not 
rejoice in this belief on sufficient evidence? But we 
think the Alliance will be compelled to admit the 
fact that it is not now in the unity of the Spirit ; 
that the bond of peace has been broken ; that they 
must come into the unity of the Spirit before they 
can keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 
It is a significant fact that the baptismal issue is now 
the greatest hindrance to this desirable consumma- 
tion. If the same disagreement existed in regard to 
16 



242 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the one Lord, or the one faith, the obstacle in the 
way of peace would be no greater. Baptism being 
admitted by all parties to be the induction into the 
unity, the disagreement in regard to it is perfectly 
unjustifiable. Nothing but compromise, and that 
would mean surrender or abandonment on one side, 
could meet the behests on the other side. To accuse 
Anti-Pedo-Baptists of obstinacy will not advance 
the interests of union, unless it can be proved that 
their steadfastness is not the result of enlightened 
conviction, but of a blind superstition. Until this 
v is done they will say one baptism ; two are not one. 
The apostle's inspiration, now before us, reaches 
far beyond the time of the text. Its far-reaching 
significance is two-fold : first, to conserve the unity 
of the one body ; and, second, to restore the unity of 
the one body when broken. These happy results 
would as naturally and as necessarily follow as cause 
and effect. The body, whether general or local, is 
furnished with the means of an everlasting peace. 
In the preamble to the bond of peace are the personal 
qualities which make the bond cementing, uniting. 
" With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffer- 
ing, forbearing one another in love ; endeavoring to 
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." 
With the qualities of lowliness, meekness, long-suf 
fering, forbearance, and love there must be effort, 
striving. Without these Christian virtues, connected 
with a fervent endeavor, no bonds, divine or human, 
will possess any adhesive power. The divine will be 
as inefficient as the human. But if the divine has 
failed, the human will be but a foolish expedient. 
The vanity of all human wisdom and effort has been 
tested on a broad scale. Instead of harmony and 



THE BArTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 248 

peace, strife and division has been the result, and 
must continue to be until the one Lord is permitted 
to take his proper place and exercise his rightful 
supremacy over the one body. We do greatly err 
when we charge the present divisions on a plurality 
of baptisms. These are but a consequence of a plu- 
rality of dictators. But for the assumed dictator- 
ship of Origen, Augustine, and others of the ancient 
fathers, there would have been no strife about infant 
baptism, and so about every other cause of division, 
as the reasons assigned for separation could not have 
existed under the dictation of the " One Lord. ; ' We 
sometimes hear such reports as the following : u The 

church at C— had an irreconcilable difficulty, 

and has agreed to an amicable separation." We con- 
fidently believe that the inspired bond of peace was 
violated by one or both parties. That they did not 
possess the lowliness, the meekness, the forbearance, 
the long-suffering, and the love ; or, there were other 
dictators, official or unofficial. For if the parties had 
possessed the Christian qualities required, such a sep- 
aration, under the supreme authority of the one Lord 
of the one body, could not have taken place, and 
when they shall come back to the bond of peace, they 
will be one again. And as in this local church so in 
the church general. Nothing but departure from the 
elementary principles of unity, as taught in the in- 
spired record, ever has or eve^can lead to separation. 
The same one-making principles are in substance 
found in all the epistles of the apostles to the 
churches. But in this place we have them arranged 
and classified. Here the one body can see their 
number, their order, and their perfect adaptation to 
accomplish the ends proposed. We can also, under 



244 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the guidance of one inspired to speak the word of the 
Lord, see our departure from the expressed will of 
the one Lord and law-giver, and then, if so minded, 
we can effect our return to that which bears the 
divine stamp of authority and approval. 

The conditions of unity in the one body are abso- 
lutely perfect, without a deviation. There is no 
license to depart from the one Lord, the one faith, or 
£he one baptism. If this be so, and these conditions 
have been violated in whole or in part, has not the 
one body, the church, ceased ? In this, as in indi- 
vidual duty, the standard must be perfect ; for an 
imperfect obedience to a perfect law -would be better 
for the subject than a perfect obedience to an imper- 
fect law. A perfect oneness in Christ is most desira- 
ble. It should be plead for, it should be prayed for, 
it should be lived for, and yet perhaps there never 
was an absolutely perfect unity among the saints at 
any time, for what is done by men is imperfectly 
done. But this will not justify the absence of desire 
and persistent effort. The divine law always speaks 
of things as they should be. Therefore Paul said to 
the saints at Corinth, " Now, I beseech you, breth- 
ren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
all speak the same things, and that there be no divi- 
sions among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined 
together in the same mind and the same judgment/' 
At this time they were divided, as we showed before. 
Still the apostle acknowledged them to be "the 
church of God " in that place. A perfect oneness 
is not essential to the existence of the body of Christ, 
but essential to its highest purity, efficiency, and 
happiness. The natural, human body may be imper- 
fect, bones may be broken, joints may be dislocated, 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 245 

members may be amputated, and be a body still, 
possessing bodily functions, and capable of bodily 
activities. A family may be divided by domestic 
discord, and be a family notwithstanding. A govern- 
ment may be divided on many important questions, 
as ours has been and yet is, and still be a body politic 
and a great power. The Jews were greatly divided 
in the times of Jesus, but he recognized them as 
God's people. There were unholy rivalships among 
them. " The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' 
seat/' They taught for "doctrine the command- 
ments of men." They loved to be called " Rabbi " 
and "greetings " in public places. There were also 
sects among them. They were the prototype of the 
present Protestant Evangelical Church : but they 
were still God's circumcised people, and beloved for 
the fathers' sake, and continued to be until God cast 
them off and gave the " kingdom " to another people. 

The one body is a divine institution, it is Christ's 
own creation, and, like all the works of God, it has 
within itself self-sustaining and self-restoring power. 
If the signs of the times deceive us not ; or, if we 
can correctly interpret them, these recuperative ener- 
gies are working with more power at this time than 
any former period. The old ecclsiasticisms are 
breaking up, the creed power is waning, human au- 
thority in matters of gospel faith and practice is 
being more lightly esteemed, and the power of the 
clergy to bind the conscience has become weakness. 
There is an irresistible negative work in progress, 
and an equally strong affirmative work going forward, 
in which the self-restoring energies of the one body 
are beginning to assert themselves. 

The union movement is now the great question of 



216 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the one body. The advocates are greatly divided 
among themselves. From a few extracts, before 
cited, we have seen that Dr. Nott Potter and Dr. 
James Davis affirmed the unity of all the evangelical 
churches. That their " oneness" was not "future, 
but present/' not to be created, but "exhibited." In 
the language of the latter, " The church has never 
been otherwise than one — one Lord, one faith, one 
baptism" etc. (Italics mine.) But this oneness was 
not admitted by another speaker. 

" THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE IN FRANCE. 

" Thirdly. We would like to see established be- 
tween the different churches frequent intercouse, un- 
der the form of exchange of pulpits ; * * or 
buch pastors might make arrangements in view of 
giving a series of lectures. Instituting several ser- 
vices here or there. * * It is not necessary that 
I should add, that in order that all this may take 
place, in order that the unity of the Spirit may be 
kept in the bond of peace, that it is absolutely need- 
ful that a closer relationship be established between 
the members of the body and their living Head ; that 
men should cease to say ' I am of Paul, I am of 
Apollos, I am of Cephas/ * * Then the separate 
churches will no longer be rivals, but sisters ; then the 
interests of the few will yield to the interests of all ; 
* * then all the offensive weapons would be used 
for the battle against error and sin ; then the word of 
the Lord Jesus will be realized; and ( the glory which 
thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be 
one as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that 
they may be made perfect in one, and that the world 
may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 247 

them as thou hast loved me.' " — Rev. Emile F. 
Cook, of Paris. 

These are but a few of the contradictory statements 
before the Evangelical Alliance. Some affirmed the 
present oneness of the church, and all that was need- 
ful to the unity of the Spirit was to exhibit that one- 
ness. Others denied there was present oneness. 
But by a frequent exchange of " pulpits " by the dif- 
ferent " pastors/' without any "closer relations to 
their living Head,'' they might remove all the evils 
of the existing divisions, and turn all their weapons 
against error and sin. This was the remedy pro- 
posed by the Rev. Emile F. Cook, of Paris. Hear 
him again : " It is not necessary that I should add, 
that in order that all this may take place, in order 
that the unity of the Spirit may be kept in the bond 
of peace, that it is absolutely needful that a closer 
relationship be established between the members of 
the body and the living Head ; and that men should 
cease to say, i I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am 
of Cephas ; that Christ may become all in all/' etc. 
The speaker then proposed a denominational confed- 
eracy, under the leadership of Paul, and Apollos, 
and of Cephas, and a frequent exchange of pulpits 
by Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, as all that was neces- 
sary to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of 
peace, and make Christ all in all. 

The plans and conflicting theories proposed in this 
great convention, gave form and coloring to the ques- 
tion of Christian union. What is now advocated on 
all the lesser union occasions, by preachers and edi> 
tors, is but a repetition of what was put forth then 
and there. But all these claims and conflicts are 
like the troubled sea, casting up and bringing impi> 



248 THE BAPTISMAL, CONTROVERSY. 

rities to the surface. It is but an effort of nature to 
throw off disease — self-restoring energies at work. 

It is sometimes amusing, and sometimes provoking, 
to hear the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace 
misapplied ; but even this is better than that it 
should be ignored. The question of Christian unity, 
like all questions that involve great aggregates and 
great interests, are encumbered with difficulties on 
every hand. The best men, the wisest men of the 
church, do not know what to do with it. Perhaps 
the main difficulties will be found to consist in this, 
namely, that the question is not left to the wisdom of 
the wise. This thought may be illustrated by the 
now settled question of American slavery. For long 
years it was the great question of the nation. The 
wisest statesmen knew not what to do with it. Their 
strength proved to be weakness, and their wisdom to 
be foolishness, for this question was not committed to 
them for adjudication. Human rights were not a 
question of tariff or of state finance, but a question 
to be settled by another tribunal ; therefore, all the 
planning and scheming to remove the evils of slavery 
and retain slavery, were unavailing. And all the 
time they knew that there was but one remedy. They 
felt it in their consciousness that the Lord's way, 
" That ye break every yoke and let the oppressed go 
free," was the only way. And God had his own way 
at last, and will have in everything he has reserved to 
himself. 

From the foundation of the American anti-slavery 
society until the final contest, the States were both 
divided and united. They still had one Lord over 
the one body. And God, in his on- going providence, 
showed us that if we would have the institution we 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 249 

must have its sin and shame. The points of coinci- 
dence between the fact and the illustration are many 
and striking. 

1. The unity of God's children is a question God 
has reserved to himself. He made the conditions of 
the oU Jewish commonwealth unity. These condi- 
tions were as immutable as himself, 

2. Until the first meeting of the Evangelical Alli- 
ance, the union of the church was not a living ques- 
tion. Before that those who deprecated sectism and 
plead for union, were denounced as fanatics, disturb- 
ers of the peace. Parties in the church were sup- 
posed to be necessary as spiritual vitalizers, to keep 
up a healthful rivalship. 4 

3. The ostensible object of the present union 
efforts is to put an end to party rivalship and aliena- 
tion, by commingling together in worship, by inter- 
communion at the Lord's table, and by co-operating 
together in common interests. 

4. From the first meeting of the Alliance to the 
last, there has been no direct effort to put an end to 
sects in the church, but to regenerate the sects, that 
they will no longer bite and devour one another ; 
that they shall no longer use their weapons against 
one another, but against unbelievers and sin. The 
whole aim and intent has been to destroy sectarian 
ism and save the sects ; to make sects respectable, 
honorable, consistent with Christ ; but to make sec- 
tarianism hateful and odious. 

5. This is at present the highest ideal of Chris- 
tian union. Something after the fashion of the 
religions of the old Grecian and Roman states. By 
a mutual consent, a religion might be good for one 
state and bad for another, and when convenient they 



250 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

would cast a grain of incense upon their neighbors' 
altar. They had no religious controversy about their 
worship, their gods, forms, or modes. 

6. This idea of sect (not personal) union is becom- 
ing more and more popular with the masses. Some 
of the old, rough corners are wearing away by fre- 
quent contact, and the courtesy of silence. This 
kind of union has always existed between individuals 
of differing sects. But the present union effort is to 
popularize it. When this is clone, if it can be done, 
the highest union ultimatum has been reached, sects 
will be made respectable, and every one will worship 
under its own vine and fig-tree. 
^ 7. What lack we yet ? Do we not now extend 
the courtesy of being evangelical to one another ? 
Do we not now acknowledge each other to be Chris- 
tians, sing and pray together, and meet together in 
sociables, fairs, and festivals ? Yes ; and more, the 
most exclusive are now discussing the questions of 
close and open communion, with at least a commend- 
able warmth. Sects, if they can only receive the 
endorsement of being Christian sects are, on the high 
road to respectability. So let them multiply and 
still increase. This is Christian sect-union, and what 
is yet wanting will be perfected at the next meeting 
of the Evangelical Alliance ; if not, it is now perhaps, 
as nearly perfect as it ever can, or will be. But this 
union is not a Pauline idea. We freely admit that it 
is union but not a unity. The Pauline idea is per- 
sonal, individual unity under the headship of one 
Lord, and not a sect union under the leadership of 
Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, according to the teachings 
of the Rev. Emile F. Cook, of Paris. But we must 
hear Paul again. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 251 

When Paul exhorted to unity he addressed the 
individuals of one church, not sects, for there were no 
Christian sects at that time. I need not say that 
there is not one apostolic epistle addressed to the 
church of sects, on the subject of keeping "the unity 
of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Therefore if this 
is something the sects should do they have a right to 
manage it after their own liking. Paul, in an epistle 
" to the saints, which are at Ephesus, and to the 
faithful in Christ Jesus ; " said, " I, therefore, the 
prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk wor- 
thy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all 
lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbear- 
ing one another in love ; endeavoring to keep the 
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. '' This 
exhortation was applicaple to every individual mem- 
ber of the church, and to every individual church, 
but wholly inapplicable to a church of sects. There- 
fore when applied to sects to " Keep the unity of the 
Spirit in the bond of peace ; " it is a most sinful mis- 
direction of the passage — a misrepresentation of the 
design of the writer. If the meaning of any writer 
were so misrepresented he would probably be a 
" Shylock " and demand "his pound of flesh." 

It is to make the apostle recognize sects as sects, 
approvingly. Paul never did such a wicked thing. 
But when he addressed himself to the sects in the 
church at Corinth he said to them, " And I, breth- 
ren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but 
as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have 
fed you with milk, and not with strong meat ; for 
hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now 
are ye able. For ye are yet carnal ; for whereas there 
is among you envying, and strife, and divisions ; are 



252 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

ye not carnal and walk as men ? For while one saith, 
I am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos, are ye 
not carnal? " Paul still acknowledges these sects to 
be in Christ. But he told them they were both 
unspiritual — weak (babes) and carnal. And in Gal. 
he classified sects with works of the flesh, u heresies," 
which is but another name for sects. Such were 
Paul's views of sects. Therefore when he besought the 
saints at Ephesus to u keep the unity of the Spirit in 
the bond of peace," he could not have meant sects, for 
as sects they are not in the unity of the Spirit. The 
object of the apostle was to maintain the unity, not 
to create a unity out of fractional and divided parts. 

There is one body. This was unqualifiedly true 
at that time. It is now true, but only constructively. 
The oneness of the body is only seen in the back- 
ground, but the many bodies in there actuality are in 
the foreground. We say the Protestant bodies, 
the Evangelical bodies. These forms of speech are 
a necessity for the sake of contradistinction, and an 
admission if one we are nevertheless many, and there- 
fore, there is one body can only apply inferentially. 

And one Spirit. Will this apply in the sense of 
the text ? The one Spirit then was the Holy Spirit 
— the Spirit of Christ, it possessed no sect qualities. 
Sects cannot be brought into existence — they cannot 
live without the sect spirit. Sects must be quick- 
ened, they must be constantly vitalized by their own 
spirit. The outward manifestations are but an 
expression of the state within. And though greatly 
divided in external organism and party interest we 
are more divided in spirit. If the present Protestant 
bodies — Evangelical bodies— were all animated by the 
one Holy Spirit, denominationalism could not longer 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 253 

exist. One of the encouraging signs of the times is 
that the sect spirit is giving way to the " spirit of 
love and of a sound mind." 

One Lord. Will this apply in its New Testament 
sense ? Lord was then an official title. It meant 
rule, authority. " And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, 
and do not the things which I say ? " Luke 6 : 46. 
" All power in heaven, and in earth is given unto 
me." So said the risen Christ. Does the present 
sect church so understand the apostle's words, " One 
Lord? " Does it so understand it practically ? If 
it does not it cannot appropriate this to itself without 
much abatement. 

One faith. One faith did not then mean one way 
of believing but that the things to be believed were 
one, and not multiform. The one faith in its practi- 
cal significance is equivalent to the faith, " That ye 
should earnestly contend for the faith which was 
once delivered to the saints. ,} 

Sects claim large freedom in the one faith, namely, 
that they have a right to believe as they please. This 
is not true in the bond of peace. There we have no 
more liberty to believe as we please than w£ have to 
do as we please. We have a right to believe the tes- 
timony and to do what we are commanded by the one 
Lord, and their our liberty ends. Not to believe 
according to the divine testimony is unbelief, and not 
to do according to the divine precept is disobedience, 
and sectism cannot exist without both unbelief and 
disobedience. Each sect may have one faith — its 
own faith. The faith of one sect is not the faith of 
any other sect in that which gives them distinctness, 
therefore there are just as many faiths as there are 
sects, and the one faith of the text — the one faith in 



254 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the bond of peace, is as inapplicable to one as it is to 
all. Before these evangelical bodies can be one they 
must settle on one faith ; the faith of some one 
creed or the faith of the New Testament — "the 
record that God has given his Son.'' If the latter, 
then they will hold the faith of the bond of peace. 
Then they will have one Lord and one faith. 

One baptism. Neither can the aggregate body 
claim this, and defend their claim. For those of the 
same body testify against the assumption. That the 
two subjects and thence modes are at least two, and 
not one, needs no farther argument. To this the 
world is witness. The arts of sophistry cannot 
deceive the testimony of the senses. 

Though grieved, we do not despond. The Founder 
of this institution said the ' ' gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it." This figure, "gates of hell/' 
means opposition, tremendous resistance. Resist- 
ance has been the fortune of the church from the 
beginning. Whether the opposition has been the most 
formidable from without or from within we have no 
means of knowing, neither do we care to know. It 
is sufficient for us to know that the Omniscient Christ 
said with all the future fortunes of his cause before 
him, the " gates of hell/' though thrown wide open, 
shall not prevail against it. No institution could 
have resisted a millionth part of the pressure that 
has been brought to bear against this. There have 
been foreign aggressions by means of the sword and 
learned infidelity on the one hand, and internal strife, 
schism, and corruption on the other hand ; but still 
the church lives and is now, after one thousand eight 
hundred years, the greatest power in the world. She 
is to-day sending forth from the book-rooms of the 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 255 

American Bible society alone, the constitution of the 
Church of Christ in sixty-five different languages. 
The church is the only power that can conserve our 
home civilization from a relapse into heathenism and 
promote civilization in heathen lands. All this she 
is doing with all the divisions and crippling influence 
•within her own inclosure. And while she is doing 
much to hold in abeyance hostile influences from 
without, she is doing much to right her own position 
and to come into a closer unity. For these leadings 
of God's providence we thank God and take courage. 
The church being of God we feel assured that she 
possesses self-restoring powers. The church in all 
her divisions and subdivisions still holds both the 
"Father and the Son/' and that the authority of the 
Scriptures is supreme, and its sense is one. It is 
true that the divine energies of this mutual faith have 
been greatly weakened by the human elements incor- 
porated with it, but the latter are now becoming 
weaker and the former are becoming stronger. The 
present condition of the church is becoming less and 
less satisfactory, and this leads to the question why 
is it so ? This is the underlying meaning in the 
union efforts, and the upheavals among the older 
establishments. 

And now, brethren, before we close this part of 
our present writing we should say a few words 
directly to you. Under the directive providence of 
God you have taken precedence in pleading for the 
unity of the one body. Something immeasurably 
higher than a mere denominational union. This 
effort began as early as 1809, and we feel well war- 
ranted in saying that the present more extended plea 
for union is an outgrowth of your plea for unity. 



256 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

You meant emphatically that u men should cease to 
say I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I am of 
Cephas." Your idea was strictly a Pauline idea as 
illustrated by the bond of peace. Ephesians 4th 
chapter was then a familiar passage and frequently 
carried into the pulpit. You used the word bond in 
its apostolic sense, as that which binds, cements, 
unites. You said all who practically and unquali- 
fiedly accept this bond consisting of the seven units, 
one body, spirit, hope, Lord, faith, baptism, Father, 
are one with us and we are one with them. This plea, 
though as old as the times of Paul, was a great nov- 
elty, but its excellence was seen at first view by all 
who prayed for deliverance from the bondage of 
creedism. Now that one half century has passed 
you may look at results of which we will not speak, 
for it is more important that we speak of our present 
and prospective future. 

1. Then. Do we mean practically the same by 
the bond of peace we did then ? Can we all return 
an affirmative answer to this question ? I fear we 
cannot. Has the unity of the Spirit been kept in all 
our churches ? It has not. Unadjustable difficul- 
ties have arisen in a few localities and the original 
congregation has separated. Did either party dis- 
claim any of the seven specifications in the bond of 
peace? So far as we are informed they did not. 
The bond of peace then is inadequate to keep the 
peace. For if the party which remained and the 
party that withdrew still held the one body, etc., the 
inspired bond of peace was too weak to hold them 
together. Or if they separated on a question of 
expediency, be it what it may, the bond of peace could 
not hold them together, for the unity was dissolved. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 257 

But it is said the separation was amicable. That 
makes it no better, inasmuch as they separated 
because they could not agree. If they could amica- 
bly separate, why could not the same amity hold 
them together ? It is certain the bond of peace was 
broken in one of its links. If in the third or in the 
fifth link the chain was broken alike. We do not 
positively say where, but we doubt not it was broken 
in the second link, " and one Spirit.'' These few 
cases have weakened our plea ; for we cannot now 
say what we could say and did say in former years, 
namely, that after a fair test, we had found the word 
of the Lord all-sufficient for all the ends of Christian 
unity ; or, to save the credit of the word of the Lord, 
will we have to say that the parties which have so 
separated were not Christians ? That they did not 
a walk worthy of their vocation," " with all lowliness 
and meekness ;" that they did not " endeavor to keep 
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." We 
must say this, or admit that the one Lord, the one 
faith, and the one baptism, is not a better basis for 
unity than a human creed. The word endeavor, 
means effort, and that effort must be directed by the 
qualities of meekness, forbearance, etc. 

But it may be asked, must we submit to what we 
believe to be wrong, for the sake of keeping the 
unity ? If the wrong is personal, let forbearance 
have its perfect work. In all such cases long-suffer- 
ing will bring redress ; if not, bear it for Christ's 
sake, for the sake of that oneness for which he so fer- 
vently and repeatedly prayed. If the wrong con- 
sists in some measures of mere expediency, or mat- 
ters of order, or doubtful interpretations of Scripture, 
or finance, or missionary work, etc., in all such cases 
17 



258 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

a brother has the right to protest, in the spirit of 
meekness. He has a right to express his dissent, 
and give his reasons for it, and then leave the 
responsibility of the wrong, if it be a wrong, to those 
who are willing to take the consequences. Then, if 
it works mischief, he will not be accountable to God 
or men ; or, if it works good, he will claim no praise. 
Having stated his objections once, he should not 
make them a source of annoyance, but go along qui- 
etly ; and in many such cases a brother might act 
both wisely and righteously, to act with the majority 
and leave the responsibility of his own action with 
them ; but in no cases can brethren separate them- 
selves, unless for causes wholly anti-Christian ; for 
nothing short of what would exclude from heaven, 
can justify separation. Nothing can compensate the 
honor of Christ — the cause of Christ — for breaking 
up the unity of the Spirit. 

Such a course would be " endeavoring to keep the 
unity of the Spirit ;^ and, we doubt not, in a major- 
ity of separations among us, the party that went off 
made no endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit, 
and upon sober after-thought and candid review, they 
would be self-convicted and condemned. 

2. No people can so fairly represent Christ in this 
as you can. The predicate upon which you have 
based the unity for which you plead, is a unity in 
faith, and that reaches back to a unity in the testi- 
mony comprehending all that was « written in the law 
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, 
concerning the Christ, and the fulfillment of these in 
the New Testament writings. The predicate of 
denominational unions is a unanimity in opinions, or 
an agreement in certain doctrines as defined by their 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY, 259 

doctrinal standards. Their unions, if they were the 
most perfect ever known among men, would not fairly 
represent Christ. Their position is too remote. But 
your position has brought you into the closest prox- 
imity. From the position you occupy, you must either 
represent the body of Christ, or you must misrepresent 
it. By the position you have taken you have incurred 
a great responsibility. The attention of the world is 
now directed to you, to see the out-working of those 
great New Testament problems, unearthed and brought 
to view by you. A failure on your part to u keep the 
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace " would be 
the greatest misfortune to the cause of Christ. If 
you fail in this, you fail in all you have proposed to 
yourselves, to the church, and to the world, to God 
and his Christ. 

This point you should guard with jealous care. 
Every member, every elder, every preacher, every 
editor, and every contributor should act as though 
they were divinely appointed guardians of the unity 
of the one body, as indeed they are. Many of us 
have been afflicted with the thoughtlessness of some 
of our scribes. Questions that were regarded as set- 
tled among us years ago have been revived — ques- 
tions which were important forty years ago, but of 
no practical value now — and on some questions some 
of our best preachers and scribes have spoken with 
an unwarranted dogmatism, which will convince no 
one, but only gender strife. When one says, both 
from the pulpit and the press, " Grod requires instru- 
mental music in the churches/' he goes too far, and 
the tendency must be unprofitable controversy, and 
that may be the " beginning of sorrows.'' 

Let me then say to the scribes, who am also a 



260 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

scribe, when we have prepared a contribution, let us 
not forget the unity. Let us review with care with 
the unity in mind. An article may be good for a 
specific case and local application, but extremely mis- 
chievous in its influence on the unity of the aggre- 
gate body. When this will be the result, let us with- 
hold it. This prudent caution will relieve our edi- 
tors from moments of unhappy suspense, not know- 
ing whether to gratify the contributor or let his paper 
pass into the waste-basket. 

" Let us therefore follow after the things which 
make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify 
another/' " Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit 
you like men, be strong." And, above all, " En- 
deavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of 
peace," and the God of peace will be with you and 
own and bless and prosper your well-begun work. 



PART FOURTH. 



CHAPTER I. 

In this part of our work we should say some things 
on this controversy we have not yet said, and did not 
wish to say, until we had first carefully examined all 
the passages where baptism is mentioned in their 
circumstantial connections. In part second we have 
examined exegetically all the baptisms reported by 
Luke in his second " treatise, " beginning with 
Christ's last commission to the eleven. 

In these reports, recorded in the book of Acts, we 
have baptism in the imperative. There subjects for 
baptism were commanded and reported as being bap- 
tized. It is reported that all classes of humanity, 
ages, and sexes were baptized save one — Jews, 
Samaritans, and Gentiles ; those that worshiped God 
and those that worshiped idols ; treasurers, centu- 
rions, jailers, sorcerers, and murderers — but no men- 
tion of that most innocent and beloved class, infants. 
But on this class the divergency begins. Many 
affirm that this last class in the great aggregate of 
humanity were also baptized. If those who affirm 
this were an ignorant and fanatical few, we might 
pass them by as objects of compassion. It is always 
painful to dissent from the learned and the pious, 
those who manifest great zeal for the Lord and devo- 
tion to his cause ; but if we were entitled to equal 
respect we would say, "let the righteous smite me," 
let them show me my error. No man should con- 
ceal the truth for the sake of pleasing men. We 



264 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

cannot pay such a price for the purchase of human 
favor. 

That we may not misrepresent those who baptize 
infants, let me say to the reader, they do not rest the 
dractice on command or example, but on inference. 
After the examination bestowed upon the final 
instruction Christ gave to his chosen ministry to go 
and preach the gospel, and their preaching and bap- 
tizing under these instructions, there is no inference 
to favor infant subjects. The accuracy of the New 
Testament style leaves infants out of the reach of 
the most remote inference. 

" And when we had accomplished those days, we 
departed and went our way ; and they all brought us 
on our way, with wives and children, till we were 
out of the city : and we kneeled down on the shore 
and prayed." Acts 21 : 5. It may be inferred that 
there were infants in this company. Infants may be 
embraced in the word children, when there is nothing 
in the context to exclude, and as there is nothing 
to forbid, we would say the inference is fair that there 
may have been infants among the number. "And 
they that did eat were four thousand men, beside 
women and children." Matt. 15 : 38. * It may be 
inferred that there were infants in this multitude. 
The word children may embrace them ; for men, wo- 
men, and children of all ages could make common 
cause in this miracle of feeding. Infants can " eat." 
" And believers were the more added to the Lord, 
multitudes both of men and women." Acts 5 : 14. 
Here inference is on the negative; for the nouns 
men and women do not embrace infants, and the 
word believers excludes them There were then no 
nfants "added to the Lord" " But when they 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 265 

believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the 
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus, they were 
baptized, both men and women." Acts 8 : 12. 
These few passages let us into the Scripture style, 
when speaking of men, women, and children being 
engaged in any common cause. But why were Mat- 
thew and Lu£e so circumstantial in narrating the 
unimportant, and so loose in that which was most 
important ? Why did Luke say " they brought us 
on our way with wives and children," and say "they 
were baptized, both men and women," and omit chil- 
dren, if children had been baptized as well as men 
and women ? If so, why did he not add the word 
children to his statement ? Then infant affusion 
might have had the benefit of an inference, if there 
had been nothing to conflict. But if he had said 
"men, women," and children, it would not be certain 
that there were infants baptized. 

The word children is used with much latitude. 
The connection must determine its meaning. It is 
applied to every age, from early infancy to old age. 
The children of Abraham. The children of Israel. 
In this use it means all the descendants of a common 
ancestor, the man of fourscore and the infant of a 
day. But infant has a specific meaning. When the 
capabilities of believing and obeying are developed, 
when the duties belonging to manhood and woman- 
hood have come, the period of infancy has passed 
away — " And they were baptized, both men and wo- 
men," was sufficiently descriptive. " But when they 
believed Philip," "they were baptized, both men and 
women/' The word believed leaves no room for infer- 
ence, for the testimony is positive. Infants, as a class, 
are quite as distinct from men as women. Why, on 



266 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

the pedo-baptist hypothesis, name the one and not 
the other ? When, therefore, we read of households 
being baptized, Luke, in a general sense, as here 
expressed, meant men and women. In fair exegesis 
this would be the rule of evidence, even if it was not 
distinctly stated that the members of these house- 
holds heard and believed. Parents being the natural 
guardians of their infants, they could have had no 
motive to have their infants baptized without apostolic 
command. If such a command had been given, it 
would have been recorded, and it would have been 
obeyed, and infant baptism would have both a New 
Testament name and history. But where we would 
expect to find the divine origin and early history of 
infant baptism, we have it not. Even if it were safe 
to rest obedience to a positive ordinance on inference, 
we have not the testimony of the most doubtful infer- 
ence. 

Could we have the history of pedo-baptist churches, 
their baptisms, and addings to the Lord, without 
formal historic mention that infant baptisms were as 
frequent among the faithful as births ? 

Let this be applied to the inspired Luke, on the 
supposition that infant baptism as well as believers' 
baptism was practiced in the times of the apostles, 
would not his unfaithfulness as a historian have been 
valid ground to reject his Acts of Apostles ? Would 
his second treatise have been admitted into the 
inspired canon ? If then there is no mention or 
inference in the epistles of the apostles to the churches 
for infant baptism, we must look for the origin of the 
custom somewhere else than in the Bible. 

Part third of this work is mainly devoted to the 
specific passages in the epistles where baptism is men- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 267 

tioned. The most prominent feature in this part of 
the New Testament is church membership relations 
and duties. If there was an infant church member- 
ship relation, there were duties corresponding with 
that relation. This may be submitted as a safe pred- 
icate. 

Jews and Gentiles, husbands and wives, parents 
and children, masters and servants, old men and 
young men, old women and young women, etc., are 
all addressed as in membership relation, and specific 
duties growing out of these relations are enjoined 
upon the membership. If there had been an infan- 
tile relation, that could not have been addressed as 
owing any obligation, but others would be owing obli- 
gations to it. These obligations would have required 
formal statement, as in every other relation. The 
whole membership would have been owing something 
to that part of the brotherhood, but the parents, being 
both the natural and spiritual guardians of their 
children, would be under special obligation. This 
is plainly set forth in the following : " Children 
obey your parents in the Lord : for this is right. 
Honor thy father and thy mother ;" " and, ye fath- 
ers, provoke not your children to wrath ; but bring 
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 
Eph. 6:1, 2, 4. If children sometimes means 
infants, it does not mean infants in this place ; for, 
first, the epistle is addressed to the saints and faith- 
ful in Christ, and the children addressed were in 
Christ. Second, children are commanded to obey 
their parents in the Lord. They were not infants. 
Third, Paul had no commands to those not in Christ, 
whether children or adults. Children in the Lord 
owe obedience to their parents in the Lord, and 



268 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

parents in the Lord owe it to their children in the 
Lord that they bring them up in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord. 

The child relation in the church is of frequent 
mention in the epistles to the churches. That is not 
the relation we are inquiring after, but the babe rela- 
tion, was this a church relation ? This is the great- 
est issue in the baptismal controversy. " I write 
unto you, little children, because your sins are for- 
given you for his name's sake. I write unto you, 
fathers, because you have known him that is from 
the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, 
because you have overcome the wicked one. I write 
unto you, little children, because ye have known the 
Father/ ' 1 John 2 : 12, 13. In this chapter the 
designation " little children '' occurs four times. 
Three times it is applied to all, once to those who 
were young in years. We have in this passage three 
of the stages in human life, fathers, young men, and 
little children. To these three classes the apostle 
says : " That which was from the beginning,'' " That 
which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." 
One step more would have brought the apostle to 
the babe relation. Fathers, young men, little chil- 
dren, and babes express all the natural stages in 
human life. The first three are addressed in their 
separate classes. True if the fourth had stood in the 
same church relation it could not have been spoken 
to, but it might have been spoken of. That it could 
not have been addressed in its own class on the sup- 
position that it was in the relation was no fault of its 
own ; but if a fault, it was the best it could have, for 
it was getting better of it every day. 

Here we may as well close the book, for it knows 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 269 

nothing of infant baptism, positively nothing, no 
more than $t knows of angel baptism. But the 
question arises, how came it ? There is a dark 
cloud overshadowing this question. No man among 
the living can answer, and no man among the dead 
has answered this question. No history can tell 
where or when it began, or who first commanded infant 
baptism, or who was the first administrator. There 
is an impenetrable darkness hanging over the ques- 
tion — a darkness which makes the baptizing of 
infants so unlike the ways of God, that our faith is 
subjected to an insupportable strain. There are no 
doubts as to the time, place, and authority, where 
" circumcision,' ' the " passover," the " law of Moses/' 
"John's baptism," or the "baptism " commanded by 
Jesus Christ, or the commemorative supper began. 
Duties claiming divine authority, which cannot give 
an account of their divine origin, are null and void. 
The starting point of all such institutions must be 
marked with time, place, and authority. Therefore 
Jesus commanded that the gospel should begin " at 
Jerusalem." 

Pedo-baptists are sensitively alive to this difficulty 
lying in their way, and hence they assume, First, 
That as the beginning of infant baptism is unknown, 
therefore it must be from the beginning and ; Second, 
That the baptism of an infant and the baptism of a 
believer are one — the same baptism. 

In answer to the first assumption, we remark, if 
infant baptism is from the beginning it must have 
been expressed or implied so plainly in the commis- 
sion that he that "reads may run," that every apos- 
tle, every preacher, and every father, and every 
mother would know their duty. It is then import- 



270 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

ant that we examine that commission by which the 
gospel was and is still being sent to #11 the world 
with reference to these two pedo-baptist assumptions. 
The beginning of baptism as a gospel ordinance 
dates after the resurrection of Christ, and before his 
ascension. It began with the voice of authority. 
" All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit.' ' Can this commission baptize 
infants ? If it can, infant baptism is from the begin- 
ning ; if it cannot, infant baptism is not from the 
beginning. Will the relation of the word teach, to 
the word baptizing justify the assumption? It will 
justify the baptizing of all that can be taught, and 
are taught. What, then, is the relation of the indi- 
viduals of the nations to the word taught ? There 
are three classes, standing in diiferent relations to 
the word teach, and therefore in different relations to 
the word baptizing. 

1. There is a class which can be taught, are will- 
ing to be taught, and are taught. The commission 
will baptize that class. 

2. There is a class which can be taught, but will 
not be taught. The commission will not baptize that 
class. 

3. There is a class which cannot be taught, there- 
fore is not taught. The commission will not baptize 
that class. 

This classification will embrace humanity in its 
relations to the commission, and its relations to teach- 
ing and baptizing. The commission can baptize the 
first class? only, and therefore it must of necessity 
reject the second and the third class. The second 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 271 

on the ground of unwillingness, and the' third on the 
ground of incapacity. The relations of these three 
classes which comprehend the whole stands thus — 
capacity and willingness, capacity and unwilling- 
ness, and incapacity and consequent irresponsibility. 

It is then certain that this commission cannot bap- 
tize infants, and therefore infant baptism is not from 
the beginning, and if infant baptism must rest upon 
the authority of Jesus Christ, we must have another 
commission, or provision must be found in the other 
form of this same commission to which we shall now 
refer. 

" Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they 
sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief 
and hardness of heart, because they believed not 
them, which had seen him after he was risen. And 
he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the gospel to every creature. He that believ- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned.' ' 

This form of the commission involves the same 
classification. First, A class capable of believing 
what the apostle preached — capable of testimony and 
accepting testimony. Second, A class capable of 
testimony but rejecting testimony. Third, A class 
incapable of testimony, and therefore incapable of 
rejecting testimony. 

This second form of the commission, like the first, 
will baptize the first class only. It will save the first 
class ; it will damn the second class, but the third 
class, being neither believers nor unbelievers, it will 
neither save nor damn, and therefore says nothing 
about that class. 

The commission the risen Christ gave to the eleven 



272 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

is the beginning of baptism. Not John's, nor Spirit 
baptism, but that which is without any qualification 
called baptism. The first form of that commission 
will baptize the taught, the instructed, only. The 
second form will baptize the believer only. There- 
fore, infant baptism is not from the beginning. This 
will sufficiently account for the fact that there is no 
mention of it in Luke's reports of baptisms, nor any 
mention of an infant church relation in the epistles 
of the apostles to the churches. The evidence, 
though negative, is of great positive value in settling 
the question, namely, that infant baptism is not like 
believers' baptism, from the beginning, and there- 
fore has no claim to divine origin. 

In answer to the second assumption, namely, 
u That the baptism of an infant and the baptism of 
a believer are one — the same baptism/' This is an 
assumption, a proposition without a proof. We may 
speak in the assumptive when the truth of the assump- 
tion is not questioned. But when the truth of what 
is assumed is respectfully challenged the assumptive 
is neither safe nor graceful. Rev. James Davis, 
British Secretary, said, in the Evangelical Alliance, 
" The church has never been otherwise than one. 
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and 
Father. This is applicable to all ages." The speak- 
er knew that the truth of this, one baptism, was not 
admitted by very many. To say this without proof 
was not courteous. He assumed that infant baptism 
and believers' baptism were one — the same baptism. 
This has always been assumed by pedo-baptists. No 
proof has yet been offered or pretended. 

The two may in some aspects be one. The mode 
or action may be the same. The formula of words 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 273 

may be the same. If water and the enunciation of 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all that is essential 
to baptism, then the baptism of infants and believers 
are one baptism. If baptism is only a mechanical 
affair, the two are one. This is the pedo-baptist 
predicate, namely, that " Water and the name of 
the Trinity are all that is esential to baptism.'' If 
the predicate is true, the conclusion is true, and 
infant baptism, and believers' baptism are one bap- 
tism. For water may be used in the same ways in 
baptizing infants as believers, and the divine titles 
may be pronounced in the one as in the other. 
Leaving all internal qualities on the part of the sub- 
ject out of view, the baptism of the two classes are one 
— are the same. We cannot accept the premises and 
take issue with the conclusions. But we do not 
accept the predicate that an administrator, a subject, 
water, and the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 
constitute baptism. 

There are certain well-defined spiritual qualities 
on the part of the subject equally essential. While 
we concede all that pedo-baptists claim, we claim 
more. Thay can claim no more without an aban- 
donment of infant baptism, and we cannot be satis- 
fied with their claim without abandoning believers' 
baptism. Therefore we cannot admit that infant 
baptism and believers' are one — the same baptism. 
The issue is on the spiritual fitness of the subject. 
Baptism is not a mere ritual, but an intelligent sur- 
render — a giving up the subjection of the conscience 
to Jesus Christ. 

Perhaps in the whole range of religious thought 
there is nothing that has given wider scope to fallacy 
than infant baptism. The present infant is the 
18 



274 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

future man, and the present man is the past infant, 
the same identical person from the first day of life 
to the last day of life. The beginning of deception 
enters at this point, as baptism is but once in life : 
therefore if baptized in the early days of life he is a 
baptized man all his life. But there is a time in 
human life when baptism is as impossible as it is 
useless. Baptism has reference to sinners and to 
sin. Both God and men discriminate between 
passive innocence and active guiltiness. Baptism 
cannot be applicable to the two opposite conditions 
of passive innocence and active guiltiness. The for- 
mer knows no law, can violate no law, and owes no 
obligation. While all this is true of the latter, and 
responsibility begins with the second stage in human 
life, the first stage is a purely animal state. If 
this view of man is humiliating it is nevertheless 
true. Infancy differs not from any other state of 
animalism save in this, namely, there is a germ in the 
infant animal which is not in any other animal. 
That germ which makes the difference is undeveloped 
in the early days — the baptizing days of infancy. 
The first developments of reason are only in regard 
to things of sense — things material. Then intelli- 
gence begins by faith to discern things spiritual. 
When this point of development is reached, the 
period of infancy has passed away and childhood 
begins. 

All our religious ideas begin with childhood. 
" And that from a child thou hast known the holy 
Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto 
salvation, through faith, which is in Christ Jesus." 
Religious thought being of the highest order is there- 
fore last in development, and childhood is the begin- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 275 

ning of all moral and religious accountability. " I 
write unto you, little children, because your sins are 
forgiven you for his name's sake.'' Your sins, your 
own personal sins, not Adam's sin, but your sins are 
forgiven you. The grace of forgiveness is offered 
as soon as needed, but not in advance. Infant bap- 
tism anticipates the necessity and would " take time 
by the forelock." 

Infant baptism and believers' baptism differ so 
widely that identification is impossible. Involuntary 
absence of all mental conceptions, religious and 
spiritual ideas on the part of infants, and the pres- 
ence of all these on the part of believers, cannot be 
a unity. And therefore, by no laws of language or 
rules of logic can infant baptism and believers' bap- 
tism be one. 

We return again to the question, when, where, 
and by whom did the custom of baptizing infants 
begin ? As said before, this question has never been 
answered, and the assumption that it is from the 
beginning demands no further consideration. The 
absence of any reliable information as to its origin is 
the main difficulty in handling the custom. For 
when you wish to lay your hand upon it, it is not 
there. The first historic mention does not say it 
began in Jerusalem, Antioch, or Rome; that it was 
commanded by Peter or by Paul, by Clement or by 
Origen. It is a child whose father is unknown and 
whose birthday was not placed on record. The most 
reliable information we can gather is, that sometime 
about the middle or the latter half of the second cen- 
tury the figment of original sin was invented, and 
soon after infant baptism was introduced. It was 
not introduced as something that had been command- 



276 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

ed by the apostles and had been omitted, nor yet on 
the ground of parental neglect. The first historic 
mention of it is a defense of the practice and the rea- 
son for it. 

We shall take some extracts from an article in the 
Christian Standard, for March 13, 1875, over the 
initials W. K. P., under the head, Tradition. " We 
Lave seen that Origen, (A. D. 230) is the first of the 
Fathers who claims apostolic tradition for the bap- 
tism of children, and that, he assigns as the reason 
why they ordered it, that they ' knew that there is 
in all persons the pollution of sin, which must be 
washed away by water and the Spirit/ i This is 
the reason that little children are baptized, because 
by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth 
is taken away.' ' It was the hereditary depravity 
derived from Adam — the original sin, subsequently 
made so prominent by Augustine/ This is the 
doctrine, without which, Origen says, i The baptism 
of infants has no meaning.' Cyprian is the real 
author appealed to on this subject. One Tidus, an 
African bishop, sent up to Cyprian this question, 
'Whether infants were to be baptized, if need 
required, as soon as they w T ere born, or not until the 
eighth day, according to the rule given in circum- 
cision/ On this question Cyprian called a council of 
sixty-six bishops. The council said, ' It is our 
unanimous resolution and judgment, that the grace 
and mercy of God is to be denied to none as soon as 
he is born * * * and no person is kept off from 
baptism and grace ; how much less reason is there to 
prohibit an infant, who being newly born, has no 
other sin save that being descended from Adam 
according to the flesh, he has from his birth con- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 277 

tracted the contagion of the death anciently threat- 
ened ! Who comes for that reason the more easily 
to receive the forgiveness of sin ; because they are 
not his own, but other men's sins that are forgiven 
him/ To these extracts we will add from the 
Church of England Book of Common Prayer, public 
baptism of infants : ' Almighty and immortal God, 
* * we call on thee for this infant, that he, com- 
ing to thy holy baptism, may receive remission ot 
his sins, by spiritual regeneration.'' 

There is a cause, real or imaginary, for everything. 
The reason for baptizing infants is plainly set forth 
in the preceding extracts. This is variously ex- 
pressed, but it is the same in substance. Origen says, 
" This is the reason that little children are baptized, 
because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of 
our birth is taken away." This " birth-pollution," 
was, by Augustine and others that followed, called 
" the original sin," and by others it is, " The Adamic 
sin." The Book of Common Prayer says, u all men 
are conceived and born in sin." The same thought 
is expressed in every pedo-baptist creed. The early 
advocates claim no Scripture authority for the prac- 
tice. The nearest approach to divine authority is by 
Origen, who claims " apostolic tradition," as we have 
seen above. The Book of Common Prayer calls the 
baptizing of infants a work of charity. It says after 
the gospel is read, the minister shall make this brief 
exhortation upon the words of the gospel. 

" Beloved, ye hear in this gospel the words of our 
Saviour, Christ, that he commanded the children to 
be brought unto him : * * Wherefore we being 
thus persuaded of the good will of our heavenly 
Father towards this infant, declared by his Son Jesus 



278 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Christ ; and nothing doubting but that he favorably 
alloweth this charitable work of ours in bringing this 
infant to his holy baptism." This shows the light 
in which infant baptism is held by the Church of 
England. It is not with them an act of obedience 
to Christ or a commanded duty, but a work of charity 
— " nothing doubting but that he favorably alloweth 
this charitable work of ours." Charitable work of 
ours. This concedes that it is a charitable work of 
their own. This is candid. These extracts might 
be greatly extended, but these are sufficient to show 
the disposing motive for baptizing infants. It was 
the remission of original sin. 

Infant baptism then rests upon a solemn fact, or 
fiction. Perhaps not exclusively upon the one or 
the other, but on a combination of both. Whether 
the little song in an old Child's Primer, u In Adam's 
fall we sinned all," is unqualifiedly true, we neither 
affirm nor deny. But it is true in some sense that 
by that fall both infants and adults have been seri- 
ously affected. "For as in Adam all die," means 
something. " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered 
into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed 
upon all men, for that all have sinned." This also 
declares a solemn truth. But whether these passages 
must be understood in the sense of " original sin," 
u birth pollution," or a moral taint upon the human 
soul is to my mind not so clear. And those who 
affirm should know that the more important the truth 
the clearer should be the proof of it. If it were even 
true that God holds infants guilty on account of the 
sin of Adam, it would not follow, as Origen says, 
u that the sacrament of baptism would take that guilt 
away," unless God had commanded the sacrament of 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 279 

baptism to be given to infants for that purpose. 
Neither would God have left a thing of such infinite 
importance to an apostolic "tradition" or a, mere 
" work of charity/' If that was one of the design^of 
baptism the gracious Christ would not have so shaped 
the law of baptism as to exclude infants. He would 
have adapted the law to infantile conditions. He 
would not have said, "teach," "baptizing," but he 
would have said, " baptizing," " teach. v " He would 
not have said "believeth '' " baptized/' but he would 
have said, " baptized r " believeth." This wording 
of the law would have been just as easy as the other. 
And this form would have been as applicable to 
infants as it now is inapplicable. Then the ancient 
fathers would have had something more reliable than 
a tradition. And the Establishment would not have 
been subjected to the humiliation of calling the bap- 
tizing of an infant " this charitable work of ours.'' 

When the Church of England baptizes an infant 
she concedes, with prayer book in hand, " this " is a 
"charitable work of ours." Out of this philosophy 
that the sin of Adam is by the Creator transferred to 
all his offspring in the sense of personal guilt has 
arisen the doctrine of infant damnation. This is its 
logical sequence. Without this, infant baptism has 
no meaning. To save infants from this consequence 
of ancestoral guilt was the originating motive as 
avowed by the fathers. Inasmuch as Jesus Christ 
had failed to make provision for this terrible emer- 
gency of imputed guilt, infant baptism was invented. 
And without this it has no sanction, and is a thing of 
naught. 

We presume no sinner has ever yet been able to 
exercise repentance toward God on account of Adam's 



280 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

sin, however much penal suffering he may have expe- 
rienced on account of it. For by that, death has 
reigned with unrelenting fury on all men, the adult 
§jpd the infant. And if there is yet another penalty 
in the sense of personal guilt resting upon passive 
infancy it is more consistent with Scripture that the 
" redemption " which Jesus Christ has wrought out 
for us will take that away than the " sacrament of 
baptism," which in the case of infants is a mere cere- 
monial, without any Scripture authority or signifi- 
cance. There is more to comfort parents in the 
hour of bereavement in the exclamation of John the 
Baptist, " Behold the lamb of God which taketh 
away the sin of the world," than there is in that self- 
imposed " work of charity v — infant baptism. 

Original sin in the sense of imputed guilt, and 
infant baptism have very nearly a simultaneous ori- 
gin. They rose together, and will stand or fall 
together. The time was when all pedo-baptist 
churches made the duty imperative. Perhaps few, if 
any, would now subject parents to church censure for 
neglect. As fast as the doctrine of the imputation of 
Adam's sin is disbelieved the practice will be aban- 
doned. This is the obvious cause of the present 
decline. 

After all, we are impressed with a conviction that 
there are some extenuations due to infant baptism. 
God has in times past, and is now permitting great 
evils for the sake of preventing greater evils. If 
there was such a departure, and so soon after the 
apostolic age, we may be sure that the ordinance could 
not have been preserved in its primitive purity. 
The few that still continued believers' baptism were 
too weak in number and influence to hold the, bal- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 281 

ance of power, and the only alternative with the 
many was infant baptism or no baptism. It was 
doubtless better for the then present and the future that 
the institution should be continued in that perverted 
form than that it should be wholly abandoned. It 
kept the ideas of sin and forgiveness, of sin and holi- 
ness, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the world. 
Also that there was a line of separation between the 
church and the world. And more, it held the great 
commission, " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Spirit '' intact, for as soon as 
baptism had been abandoned the teaching of all na- 
tions would have been abandoned likewise. For then 
its aggressive and proselyting meaning would have 
been lost, and the commission in which are contained 
all the proselyting energies of the church would have 
become a dead letter, and all evangelizing and mis- 
sionary effort would have ceased. But neither the 
introduction nor yet the continuance of infant bap- 
tism has served to check the proselyting spirit. All 
these ideas were indistinctly marked and in a meas- 
ure kept alive during that long and dark night which 
so soon followed the apostolic age. But if infant 
baptism, a human substitute for believers' baptism 
had not been permitted by a directive providence, 
Christianity, even in its corrupted forms, would have 
been blotted out, for by means of this, much divine 
truth, associated with other gospel truth, was kept 
before the human mind. Experience has proved 
that truth mixed with error is better than unmixed 
falsehood. 

Infant baptism was not permitted to come in with- 
out some resistence, but the prepondering influences 



282 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

were too strong, and in process of time infant baptism 
became the rule, and believers' baptism the exception. 
And what appears strange that every pedo-baptist 
creed and doctrinal standard applies all the Scripture 
texts that speak of believers' baptism indiscriminately 
to both. This misapplication, although a necessity, is 
not without good results. But whether infant bap- 
tism is now entitled to the same extenuations it was 
in by-gone ages is quite another question. If at 
present it claimed no more than u apostolic tradi- 
tion " or to be a "charitable" work of our "own" 
we would not chide it. But when pedo-baptists 
charge the fatherhood of this human device upon 
Jesus Christ we file in our solemn protest for his 
sake. This is not doing with Jesus Christ according 
to the golden rule. This is not doing unto him as 
we would that others should do unto us. If they 
claimed no more than its early defenders (apostolic 
tradition) in A. D. 230, or if they claimed no more 
than the Book of Common Prayer used in England 
and America, than a charitable work of their own in 
bringing infants to holy baptism, there would be no 
controversy about it at the present time, or if there 
was it would rest upon another issue. We would 
reasonably suppose that the early fathers would offer 
the best defense and the learned and pious Episcopal 
ministry would do the same. Both were much nearer 
the time when the custom began than the present 
advocates, and were therefore entitled to more con- 
sideration than they, and if they claimed no author- 
ity from Jesus Christ they were not chargeable in 
misrepresenting Jesus Christ as is the present pedo- 
babtist ministry. We doubt not but this misrepre- 
sentation of the Saviour of sinners is more sinful 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 283 

than the thing itself. To torture his silence on the 
subject into an approval is to treat the Christian 
Lawgiver with great disrespect. 

If there is no cause for this controversy about 
infant baptism, the strife should cease. If it is from 
Christ, and there is cause for this strife, of at least 
one thousand and six hundred years continuance, 
that cause must inhere to the practice ; and if so, all the 
wisdom of heaven and of earth cannot defend Jesus 
Christ from a blind and crooked legislation in this 
thing, and then we could«only pity him and take the 
consequences that would follow. But, on the other 
hand, if man himself is the cause of this strife, which 
has been the cause of persecution, of denominational 
dissension, and domestic discord, who would not 
rejoice to see the peace-loving Christ fully vindicated 
from all this sin and shame. 

Who will incur this reproach to the church ? Who 
will have to be responsible in the day of reckoning ? 
We were once brought to look this question squarely 
in the face. We had to make a decision. We did 
make a decision. We commend the same decision to 
others. 

After a careful examination of all the passages, 
we shall say a little more on the modes of baptism. 
On this, as on the subjects for baptism, the Scriptures 
are extremely barren. They furnish no classification 
of the different modes or subjects. The Scriptures 
abound in classifications of nations, of persons, offices, 
duties, ministrations, works, fruits, of man and things, 
of the righteous and the wicked ; but there is no clas- 
sification of different subjects for baptism, and differ- 
ent modes of baptism. All parties who baptize differ- 
ent subjects have to classify them to be understood. 



284 THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEKSY. 

"Not only those that do actually profess faith in, 
and obedience unto, Christ, but also the infants of 
one or both believing parents, are to be baptized. n 
— Confession of Faith, pp. 1^6, 1^7. 
. This is a formal classification of subjects to be bap- 
tized. We need not encumber these pages with sim- 
ilar extracts from other pedo-baptist standards. They 
all have the same classification, must have. 

" Dipping -of the person into the water is not 
necessary ; but baptism is rightly administered by 
pouring or sprinkling water upon the person/' — 
Confession of Faith, p. 11^6. 

This is a formal classification of modes. Three 
modes equally valid, only the first (dipping) is not 
necessary. If dipping had been necessary there 
could have been no modes, 

Still more on modes. Edinburgh Encyclopedia, 
edited by Sir David Brewster, article, Baptism. — 
u The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the fol- 
lowing manner: Pope Stephen the II., being driven 
from Rome by Astolphus, king of Lombards, in 753, 
fled to Pepin, who, a short time before, had usurped 
the crown of France. While he remained there, the 
monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him whether, 
in case of necessity, baptism performed by pouring 
water on the head of the infant would be lawful, 
Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth 
of this fact should be allowed, which, however, some 
Catholics deny, yet pouring or sprinkling was admit- 
ted only in cases of necessity. It was not until the 
year 1311, that the legislature, in a council held at 
Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be 
indifferent. In this country (Scotland), however, 
sprinkling was never practiced, in ordinary cases, till 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEESY. 285 

after the Reformation, and in England, even in the 
reign of Edward VI., immersion was commonly 
observed. But during the persecution of Mary, 
many persons, most of whom were Scotchmen, fled 
from England to Geneva, and there greedily imbibed 
the opinions of that church. In 1556 a book was 
published at that place, containing the form of pray- 
ers and ministration of sacraments, approved by the 
famous and godly-learned man, John Calvin, in 
which the administrator is enjoined to take water in 
his hand, and lay it on the child's forehead. These 
Scottish exiles, who had renounced the authority of 
the Pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of 
Calvin ; and, returning to their own country, with 
John Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprink- 
ling in Scotland. From Scotland this practice found 
its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but 
was not authorized by the established church. 9} 

This extract is of the highest historic authority. 
Its leading thought is on modes — modes of baptism. 
The monks of Cressy were immersionists ; but Ste- 
phen, at their request, decided that pouring was law- 
ful. The Catholics were immersionists until 1311, 
when the legislature at Ravenna declared that immer- 
sion or sprinkling were things indifferent. Two law- 
ful modes. The Scotch exiles were immersionists 
until 1556, when they accepted sprinkling as a sub- 
stitute from Calvin. Then they had two modes. 
From Scotland sprinkling made its way into England, 
in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by 
the established church. Neither is sprinkling yet 
authorized by that church, only by the law of custom, 
as we will hereafter show. Let us here say that 
neither the framers of the Confession of Faith, Pope 






286 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

Stephen, the Legislative Council of Kavenna, John 
Calvin, nor any other tribunal has had the audacity 
to abolish immersion, or even declare that immersion 
was lawful. They had just daring enough to decide 
that pouring and spinkling were also " lawful.'' The 
reader will readily see the difference between deciding 
that immersion was unlawful, and sprinkling was 
lawful. They had arrogance enough to do the latter, 
but not enough to do the former. Inasmuch as 
Jesus Christ had ordained a mode, they only claimed 
the right to do the same. They admitted that 
his mode was lawful, but their modes were also 
lawful, and a thing indifferent, whether this or that. 
But the Presbyterians went a little farther and said, 
" Dipping is not necessary/' What the others said 
by implication, the Presbyterians said in language 
most definite; for if u dipping" was not " necces- 
sary," " sprinkling, '* was necessary. This was out- 
popeing Popery. But we must also hear the Book 
of Common Prayer on modes : 

" Then the priest shall take the child into his 
hands, and shall say to the god-fathers and god-moth- 
ers, 6 name this child,' and then, naming it after them, 
if they certify him that the child may well endure it, 
he shall dip it in the water, discreetly and warily, 
saying, ' I baptize thee in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' 
But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall 
suffice to pour water upon it, saying the aforesaid 
words." 

These instructions to the priest still give the pref- 
erence to dipping. It is only in case of weakness 
that pouring is allowed. But it came to pass in pro- 
cess of time that all children were weak, as well as 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 287 

all adults, and dipping is abandoned only in a very 
few exceptional cases. But why give the preference 
to dipping ? Is not pouring more convenient ? No 
reason can be assigned for this preference between 
the two modes save this, namely, that the Episcopal 
Church of England knows full well that dipping was 
commanded by Jesus Christ, and pouring is com- 
manded by men — commanded by themselves, and not 
by the Lord. The instructions concede this. " But 
if they shall certify that the child is weak, it shall 
suffice to pour water upon it." The word suffice is a 
fearful word in this connection. It shall suffice as a 
substitute for the dipping Christ has commanded. It 
shall suffice for baptism to the infant. It shall 
suffice for baptism to Jesus Christ. It shall be 
accepted by him. It shall suffice on earth and in 
heaven as the baptism the risen Christ commanded 
his apostles to preach to the nations. All the pres- 
ent baptisms administered by Episcopal priests to 
their flocks rest upon this suffice. There never was 
a more open, unconcealed case of rivalry between 
military chieftains than this. This is disputing the 
supremacy with Jesus Christ. " But if they certify 
that the child is weak it shall suffice to pour water 
upon it." The word shall is used in the absolute 
sense. It shall suffice, it shall answer the purpose, 
it shall be sufficient. 

Jesus prefaced baptism by saying, " All power is 
given unto me in heaven and in earth : go ye ; there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name/' etc. Jesus Christ did not assume the respon- 
sibility of the command ; but he said the " power is 
given unto me," and, therefore, he will allow no 
equal, no rival to share the power with him. We do 



288 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

not say that the introduction of infant subjects, and 
the modes of pouring and sprinkling, were premedi- 
tated rivalry. We do not charge upon the ancient 
fathers, Pope Stephen, the Council at Ravenna, John 
Calvin, the Confession of Faith, or the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, a motive so desperately wicked as to 
rival him whom God has constituted "head over all 
things," but we should not shut our eyes to results ; 
for if the results are rival consequences, they would 
have been no less so if premeditated. If Jesus Christ 
commanded believers' baptism only, then infant bap- 
tism is a most formidable rival ; for it anticipates 
Christ in his prospective believing subjects. And if 
Jesus Christ did not command pouring and sprink- 
ling, then these are rival modes, taking from Christ 
whatever of honor to himself or of spiritual blessing 
to the subject he contemplated by an intelligent con- 
fession and an immersion into his name. With the 
motives of these departures we have nothing to do. 
They may have been the result of that liberty-taking 
which prevailed so extensively in darker days, and, 
therefore, we leave the disposing motives of these 
innovations to those who are willing to perpetuate 
that which is not from heaven but of men. 

As said before, on subjects for baptism and modes 
of baptism, the New Testament writings are extreme- 
ly barren. All they know of these questions is that 
believers were commanded to be baptized, and 
believers were said to have been baptized. That is 
all. If there had been different modes and subjects, 
then these would have required classification, as now, 
and special instruction then as now in regard to those 
different modes and subjects. There are no such 
classifications and directions in the New Testament 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 289 

records. Hence we justly conclude there were no 
modes differing the one from the other, and subjects 
differing the one from the other. These differentials 
are unmanageable to those who practice them without 
special instructions. To illustrate this fact clearly, 
we will refer again to the Confession of Faith, and 
let that represent all other pedo-baptist bodies. On 
modes the standard directs : " Dipping of the person 
into the water is not necessary ; but baptism is rightly 
administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the 
person.' ' Where is this written in the inspired 
record ? We ask not for the exact verbal form, but 
for the substance. On subjects it says : " Not only 
those who do actually profess faith in, and obedience 
unto, Christ, but also the infants of one or more 
believing parents are to be baptized. " Again, we 
ask, in what book of the New Testament will this be 
found ? We will not ask for the exact form of words, 
but only for the thought. The Presbyterian church 
could not get along with its modes and subjects with- 
out these specific directions, so neither can any other 
pedo-baptist church, but the church which Jesus 
Christ built, having neither modes nor subjects, has, 
therefore, no need for such directions, and, therefore, 
we have them not. 

It is matter of profound astonishment, that after 
centuries of strife on modes of baptism and subjects 
for baptism — after sermons, tracts, books, and debates 
without number on modes and subjects — the truth, 
so far as the New Testament writers are concerned, 
may be expressed in the following brief proposition : 
Believers were commanded to be baptized, and believ- 
ers were said to have been baptized. 

On subjects and modes the New Testament writers 
19 



290 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

have said nothing. This is all we have been enabled 
to gather from this somewhat labored investigation. 
If this is so it should be admitted. If it is not so it 
should be refuted. We assume that this is true, and 
hold ourself in readiness for the defense. This also 
leads out the real cause of the baptismal strife. We 
can see where it is, what it is, and what it is not. It 
originated in what the Lord did not command, 
" neither had entered into his heart.' ' Infant sub- 
jects of baptism are historically unknown until the 
times of the fathers. The exact time when it began 
is unknown ; but all history dates its beginning some- 
time after the apostles, or the second generation fol- 
lowing. This class of subjects was the first, and, 
therefore, has been the longest continued cause of 
disunion. Modes — modes of baptism are also un- 
known in history until about the middle of the third 
century. Dr. George C. Knapp's Theology, trans- 
lated by Leonard Woods, Jr., of Andover, Vol. 2, p. 
516, says : " Cyprian first defended baptism by 
sprinkling, when necessity called for it, cautiously 
and with much limitation.'' But "the first law for 
sprinkling," Sir David Brewster, in the extract given 
before, says, " was obtained in the following manner : 
Pope Stephen II., being driven from Rome by Astol- 
phus, King of Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, 
a short time before, had usurped the crown of France. 
While he remained there, the monks of Cressy, in 
Brittany, consulted him, whether, in case of neces- 
sity, baptism performed by pouring water on the head 
of the infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that 
it would." This was the first law for sprinkling, 
says the author of the Edinburg Encyclopedia. What 
Cyprian defended with " caution " and " much limit- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 291 

ation," Pope Stephen, an ambitious aspirant, declared 
to be lawful. Pope Stephen then said sprinkling, 
in case of necessity, was lawful. This was the first 
law for sprinkling. This historic fact remains uncon- 
tradicted. Sir David Brewster cannot be suspected 
of any partialities in favor of immersion ; but as he 
has clearly shown that Pope Stephen's law applied 
only to cases of necessity, sprinkling was not in all 
cases legalized, even by Roman Catholics, until 1311. 
This then is the reason of the baptismal contro- 
versy on subjects and modes. On the subject and the 
mode there never has been any controversy. There- 
fore believers are still the subjects, and immersion the 
mode by way of eminence. In this subject and this 
mode Catholics and Protestants of every name have 
been united. And when Baptists were persecuted it 
was not because they held with unflinching tenacity 
to the subject and the mode, but because they spoke 
of subjects and modes as being of human ordination, 
as subverting the Lord's way, and as being desperate- 
ly wicked and profane. The head and front of the 
offense of immersionists is not because they give their 
unqualified preference to what they believe to be the 
subject and mode commanded by Jesus Christ to his 
apostles, but because they will not accept the subjects 
and modes commanded by men as being baptism. Ii 
they would do this the offense would cease, and they 
might still enjoy what they believe and know to be 
the Lord's way of it, without reproach or the charge 
of exclusiveness. 

If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the witnesses 

. for Jesus, and Luke, the witness for the apostles, and 

Peter and Paul testifying for themselves, in their 

epistles to the churches, knew nothing, have said 



292 THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVERSY. 

nothing, about subjects and modes, then subjects and 
modes are competition, and the originators of subjects 
and modes are competitors. Here is where the con- 
troversy is ; therefore, the controversy resolves itself 
into this, as being the real issue : shall those who 
have on their own assumed authority added infants to 
believers as subjects for baptism, and have added 
pouring and sprinkling to immersion as modes of 
baptism, be honored with a place by the side of Jesus 
Christ ? Can we tamely, and with an affected cow- 
ardly neutrality, allow them to divide the supremacy 
with him ? Shall we, for the sake of being called 
charitable, say that Jesus, when he claimed all 
authority in heaven and earth, asserted what was only 
an empty boast, by practically consenting that others 
have equal legislative rights ? or shall we with becom- 
ing Christian dogmatism affirm, " One Lord, one faith, 
• one baptism ?" When the real cause of the strife is 
laid bare — when it is stripped of all its sophisms and 
special pleadings — when it appears in its own naked- 
ness, the issue is just this, does the supremacy belong 
to Jesus Christ alone ? All other issues in the bap- 
tismal controversy are false issues, side issues, so far 
as subject and mode are concerned. We submit, then, 
that the controversy may be settled without compro- 
mising one item of faith or piety, one command or 
promise, by changing two words from the plural into 
the singular form, by striking out the letter s from 
the words subjects and modes. This revision would 
give us a pure speech and would lead to a pure apos- 
tolic practice ; moreover, it would relieve Jesus 
Christ from this untoward strife, and leave the conse- 
quences where they justly belong. 

We feel assured that every conscientious Christian 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 293 

who has a clear vision, will be willing to abandon all 
that is human in his baptism for his own sake and for 
Christ's sake and for the sake of the unity of the 
Spirit. Many of the most godly and learned of all 
parties have renounced human substitutes and have 
been baptized ; but who has renounced his immersion 
and asked for sprinkling to satisfy the demands of a 
tender conscience ? Affusionists themselves would 
doubt the integrity of such an applicant, and in but 
few cases would his wishes be complied with ; but 
immersionists never doubt the intelligence or the 
religious integrity of such as may call upon them to 
correct a serious mistake, and notwithstanding this 
freedom with other men's ministrations, immersionists 
are still numbered with the evangelical. But should 
aifusionists use the same freedom with their ministra- 
tion, they would probably neither reciprocate nor 
accept the courtesy. 

Before concluding this treatise we should give a 
little more space to the meaning of baptism, the 
scriptural reason for it. The formality of any insti- 
tution derives its importance from the reason for it. 
This is true of the formality of marriage, or the form- 
alities of induction into office, etc. The importance 
is not in the ritual, but in the meaning. Jesus Christ 
would not have ordained either a subject or a mode 
without a reason, a necessity. That reason, so fre- 
quently and so clearly expressed, is also controverted. 
But the controversy on this phase of the institution 
bears a different relation to the general controversy 
than the subjects and the modes. The latter take on 
a legislative aspect. They had to be legalized by 
human authority before the churches would accept 
infant affusion. But the meaning of baptism has 



294 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

never been legislated upon. No ecclesiastical council 
has decided what baptism was for, or what it was not 
for. The controversy in regard to its meaning is, 
therefore, theoretic and speculative. It is of the 
same type with the controversy on faith and works, 
and all other theoretic questions. Institutions, 
whether human or divine, like words, have a primary 
meaning, and, like words, they may have many sec- 
ondary or consequent meanings, and, as the definer 
always gives the primary meaning first, and the more 
remote meanings afterwards, so the author or the 
founder of an institution will always state the primary 
use or object first. This is the rule and the dictate 
of common sense. We affirm that baptism has a 
a primary meaning, and this is first in statement, and 
the first in formal statement is its primary meaning 
and the reason why it should be administered and 
received. This affirmation will require some defense 
and illustration. Not, however, because the primary 
meaning of the ordinance is not clearly stated in the 
Scriptures, but because its first meaning has been 
displaced by some of its secondary meanings. We 
presume no God-fearing man would feel any repug- 
nance to the primary meaning of baptism, as defined 
by Jesus Christ and his apostles, if he understood 
them. But why should such fail to understand? 
This question cannot be answered by a few brief sen- 
tences, if answered at all. In this, as in some other 
cases, one thing must be unlearned before another 
can be learned. The mind, like the hand, can only do 
one thing at once. To place things in order is an 
easy task ; but to replace what has been displaced is 
usually found to be a perplexing business. And 
before we can see the necessity for re- adjustment we 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVEKSY. 295 

must know that there has been derangement. Our 
baptismal education is not (with small exception) 
direct from the Scriptures, but direct from departures 
from the Scriptures. The masses even of the clergy- 
do not know their own schoolmaster on this subject. 
On this baptismal question there have been many 
great departures. The first departure was from the 
primitive form — the apostolic. It was not reforma- 
tory, but supplemental. Its first object was, as set 
forth in preceding pages, to make some provision for 
infantile misfortune — for the forgiveness of imputed 
sin — the sin of the representative transferred to the 
represented. This led to the necessity of infant 
immersion. The next departure made provision for 
bodily weakness, both as respects infants and adults, 
by substituting pouring or sprinkling for immersion, 
in the time of need, in an unlooked for approach of 
death. This departure began early, but its progress 
was certain, and reached its highest point in 1311, 
when Romanism u declared immersion or sprinkling 
indifferent." But this indifference in modes would 
not necessarily make a difference in the design of 
baptism, but the baptizing of infants for the remis- 
sion of the sin of their most remote ancestor was 
something very different from baptizing a sinner for 
the remission of his own actual sins. To baptize for 
the remission of one imputed sin, and to baptize for 
the remission of the many sins of the past life, 
changed the meaning of the ordinance entirely. 
And this led to another change, namely : that the 
saving efficacy of baptism consisted wholly in the 
formality. This was the beginning of sacramental 
efficacy — sacramental grace — the grace of God com- 
municated to the soul by holy hands, by an official 



296 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

consecration derived from an assumed apostolic suc- 
cession. The remission of this one entailed sin, 
which was not a sin, " for sin is the transgression of 
law, ,; took the place of the remission of actual sins, 
the voluntary transgressions of known law. The 
remission of this imaginary sin by baptism displaced 
the primary meaning of baptism and abolished the 
divine disposing motive of the ordinance. This cast 
a dark shadow over the meaning of baptism, for it 
could not have tivo primary meanings, one for infants 
and another for believers. From that time the lan- 
guage of the apostles, " Repent and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
sion of sins, ,, had no definite meaning, and the bap- 
tism of adults was as much a mere formality as was 
the baptism of infants. 

The next departure was not from the Scriptures, 
but from Roman Catholicism. Whatever this depart- 
ure accomplished as pertains to faith or piety, it 
accomplished but little pertaining to baptism, for all 
pedo-baptist churches have retained the same subjects 
and modes, and as a necessary consequence they 
must retain the same design. There can be but one 
object in baptizing infants', and if that is not for the 
remission of original sin, then it is for no object. 
The remission of original sin was the reason for bap- 
tizing infants, as defined by the fathers. Protestant 
pedo-baptists have not disclaimed this reason for the 
continuance of the practice. They are too expert in 
logic to continue the practice and disavow the reason 
for it ; for they know that when the reason of a law 
no longer exists the law is abolished or it becomes a 
dead letter. But they still avow the same reason, the 
remission of original sin, as defended by Origen, 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 297 

Augustine, Cyprian, and a council of sixty-six bish- 
ops, and all the popes of Rome. We find in all their 
church directories the same reason in fact or in sub- 
stance. In the directory of the Church of England, 
the priest is required to open the service of baptizing 
infants with the following words : " Dearly beloved, 
forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin." 
The Methodist Discipline requires the minister to use 
the same words : u Dearly beloved, forasmuch as 
all men are conceived and born in sin." This intro- 
duction to the ceremony, by fair implication, defines 
the meaning of it, namely : that it is for the forgive- 
ness of that sin in which the infant was conceived 
and born. If this birth pollution is even true in the 
fullest sense of these words, it would not follow that 
baptism would remove it without a divine command 
to that effect. That baptism in the sight of God 
removes that moral taint is a most daring assump- 
tion. Baptism, in its three-fold aspect, has not been 
affected by this departure from Romanism. It is the 
same in fact and in form, in subjects, modes, and 
design, that it was before Martin Luther was born, 
and hence, while the primary meaning of baptism is 
admitted in theory, it is denied in practice. It is 
impossible to defend both infant and believers' bap- 
tism on the same Scripture predicate. In this, as in 
all cases when interests conflict, one or the other 
must suffer. 

The next departure was from the Reformation, in 
the times of Luther. Its leading feature was oppo- 
sition to infant sprinkling and a plea for believers' 
immersion, known in history as the Anabaptist move- 
ment. While it was a departure, it was claimed to 
be a return to the word of God by its advocates. We 



298 THE BAPTISMAL CONTKOVERSY. 

shall give a few extracts from the History of the 
Reformation, by J. H. Merle D'Aubigne : " The 
fanaticism of the Anaba.ptists, which had been 
extinguished by Luther's return to Wittemburg, 
reappeared in vigor in Switzerland, where it threat- 
ened the edifice which Zwingle, Haller, and QEcolam- 
padius, had erected on the foundation of the word of 
God. Thomas Munzer, obliged to quit Saxony in 
1521, had reached the frontiers of Switzerland. Con- 
rad Grebel, whose restless disposition we have already 
remarked — * * 'Let us/ said Grebel, 'form a 
community of true believers ; for it is to them alone 
that the promise belongs, and establish a church 
without sin.' ' It is not possible/ replied Zwingle, 
■ to make a heaven upon earth ; and Christ has 
taught us to let the tares grow among the wheat/ 

* * The council of Zurich, in some alarm, directed 
that a public discussion should be held, and as the 
Anabaptists still refused to relinquish their errors, 
some of them, who were natives of Zurich, were 
imprisoned, and others who were foreigners were 
banished ; but persecution only inflamed their zeal. 

* * Zwingle was deeply afflicted by this agitation. 
He saw a storm descending on the land where the 
gospel had as yet scarcely taken root. Resolving to 
oppose these disorders, he composed a tract ' on bap- 
tism/ which the council of St. Gall, to whom he 
dedicated it, caused to be read in church, in the hear- 
ing of the people. ' Dear brethren in the Lord/ 
said Zwingle, ' the waters of the torrents which rush 
from the rocks hurry with them everything within 
their reach. * * The spirit of disputation and 
self-righteousness acts in a similar manner. It occa- 
sions disturbances, banishes charity, and where it 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTEOVEKSY. 299 

found fair and prosperous churches, leaves .. nothing 
but mourning and desolate flocks.' Thus wrote 
Zwingle, the child of the mountains of the Tocken- 
burg. ' Give us the word of God/ exclaimed an 
Anabaptist, who was present in church, ' and not the 
word of Zwingle.' Immediately confused voices 
arose. ' Away with the book ! away with the book !' 
cried the Anabaptists ; then rising, they quitted the 
church, exclaiming, i Do you keep the doctrine of 
Zwingle, as for us we will keep the word of God.' 
* * On the 6th of November, in the preceding 
year, a public discussion had taken place, in order to 
content the Anabaptists, who were constantly com- 
plaining that the innocent were condemned unheard. 
The three following theses were put forth by Zwingle 
and his friends as subjects of the conference, and 
triumphantly maintained by them in the council hall : 
" The children of believing parents are children of 
God, even as those who were born under the Old 
Testament, and consequently they may receive bap- 
tism. 

" Baptism is, under the New Testament, what cir- 
cumcision was under the Old. Consequently, bap- 
tism is now to be administered to children as circum- 
cision was formerly. 

" The custom of repeating baptism cannot be justi- 
fied, either by examples, precepts, or arguments, 
drawn from the Scriptures ; and those who are 
rebaptized, crucify Jesus Christ afresh. 

" But this discussion did not check the progress of 
Anabaptism, and more severe measures were adopted, 
but not approved by Zwingle, who was disposed to 
rely upon argument only. Fourteen men, including 
Felix Mantz, and seven women, were arrested and, 



300 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

in spite of Zwingle's entreaties, imprisoned on an 
allowance of bread and water in the heretic's tower." 
This same Mantz was afterwards drowned. tf The 
government, in its alarm, suffered itself to be hurried 
into strange measures. Resolved on making an 
example, they condemned Mantz to be drowned on 
the 5th of January, 1527." 

The spirit of popery in defense of a popish custom 
was still in the Reformation. The reader can make 
his own comments on the foregoing historic facts. 
He will find them in " History of the Reformation,' ' 
pages 358, 359, 360. 

The Anabaptists at first were in sympathy with 
the reformers ; but as they now possessed the word 
of God in their own language, they plead for a more 
thorough reformation, the abandonment of all the 
customs of Rome not enjoined by the word of God. 
If the reformers had rejected infant baptism, this 
door would not have been left open to the Anabap- 
tists, and this departure from the Reformation would 
have been impossible, as the ground would have been 
preoccupied. 

But in all the discussions between the reformers 
and the Anabaptists, the design of baptism was over- 
looked. Zwingle did not in his theses refer to the 
reason for baptizing infants. He took circumcision 
for his predicate, and said, u they may receive bap- 
tism." And the Anabaptists did not say why or for 
what believers should be baptized. All they brought 
into discussion was believers' immersion ; that being 
required by the word of God to which they made 
their constant appeal, and for which they also suffered. 
And just as the Anabaptists stood in 1517, so all the 
Baptist denominations stand in 1877, differing not in 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 301 

the reason for baptism from pedo-baptists. The Ana- 
baptist departure was an important movement toward 
a better understanding and a more scriptural practice, 
but in a relative sense they gave no attention to the 
weightier matter of the ordinance. The reason for 
an action makes the action important or unimportant. 
This is true of all human appointments. But the 
reason for anything God has appointed is in all cases 
important, whether it pleased him to make known the 
reason or not. Whether or not, if God has com- 
manded us to do or forbear, there should be no ques- 
tioning on our part. When Jesus Christ required 
those who believed the gospel to be baptized, he gave 
the reason for it. It is strange that Baptists should 
have been so tenacious about subject and mode, ever 
ready to suffer reproach, imprisonment, and death, 
for these, and so indifferent about the design. 

This indifference left a door open for another 
departure ; nay, more, made another departure need- 
ful. The last departure involving baptism was from 
the Baptists. An issue was formed on the design, or 
rather on the primary meaning of the ordinance. 
But the departure was compulsory, for those who 
believed and taught the new doctrine, both individ- 
uals, churches, and associations, were expelled from 
the communion of the regular Baptists. Although 
agreeing on subject and mode, but differing on design, 
their fellowship could not be allowed, neither is it 
yet allowed, and the issue remains to this day as it 
was in 1827. 

After baptism has been debated for one thousand 
six hundred years ; after it has been legislated upon 
by councils and by Popes ; after it has been made 



302 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

o 

an occasion of every form of persecution, martyrdom 
not excepted, we might reasonably expect to find it 
in a state of almost hopeless entanglement. But the 
reason of this long continued strife is in the strife 
itself. It has been making an occasion of its own 
wrong at the expense of Jesus Christ and his cause 
in the world. 

Pedo-baptists have yet to correct every phase of 
this institution before they can have the baptism 
commanded by Jesus Christ. But as respects immer- 
sionists it remains for then* to agree upon the design. 
This done and they have " one baptism." And until 
this is done the aggregate body of those who practice 
believers' baptism only cannot in truth claim that 
they have but one baptism. 

To contribute something to this most desirable end, 
we shall now speak of the primary meaning of bap- 
tism. We have before remarked that every ordi- 
nance, human or divine, has a primary meaning. 
The same institution may have many consequent or 
secondary meanings, but all these are derived from 
the first, whether literal or figurative. The first 
meaning is in all cases the literal meaning, and is 
expressed in the most unfigurative language. 

To illustrate this proposition we shall refer to the 
commemorative supper. When Jesus instituted the 
supper he said to his disciples : " this do in remem- 
brance of me." Luke 22 : 19. This do in remem- 
brance of me, was part of the institution. It was the 
reason for it — it was the meaning of it. It was first 
in the statement and preceded every after meaning 
as given by apostles. " For as often as ye eat this 
bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's 
death till he come." 1 Cor. 11 : 25. " For as often 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 303 

as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you do openly 
publish the death of the Lord until he come." This 
is another translation of the text, and expresses the 
sense more clearly. To shew or publish is not 
remembrance. This was a consequent meaning and 
had a relative object. It was to inform others not 
members of the church of the death of Christ. It 
was one of the appointed means by which the death 
of Christ should be published until he would come 
again. 

u foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, 
that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes 
Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified 
among you?" Here we have another secondary 
meaning, and somewhat figurative. It is placing 
the loaf and the cup for the body, the blood, and the 
cross of Christ. Christ was only in a monumental 
sense crucified in Galatia. He was set forth. The 
phrase set forth means to manifest, to present, to 
exhibit. This is another secondary meaning of the 
supper. These secondary meanings would have no 
significance without the primary meaning. They 
would be only assumptive reasons for the observance. 
" This is my body which is given for you : this do in 
remembrance of me." This is the reason in fact, 
and from this all secondary reasons derive their sig- 
nificance. But Jesus gave not one of the consequent 
meanings. He gave but one, and that was the com- 
memorative. The other designs were given by Paul 
long after. Would it be allowable to displace the 
first and substitute the second ? Substitute the 
words of Paul, "ye do shew the Lord's death," for 
the words of Jesus Christ ; " this do in remembrance 
of me ? " This would be a perversion of the institu- 



304 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

tion. It would be a blotting out the primary and 
substituting a remote meaning, and the result would 
be that the commemorative ordinance would be lost 
to the worshiper. The supper might be scriptural in 
form and have a scriptural meaning, and yet diverted 
from its original design. So in regard to baptism. 

When Jesus gave the ordinance of baptism he gave 
the reason for it. That reason was first in the state- 
ment, and is therefore the primary meaning of the 
ordinance. This meaning the Saviour of the world 
associated with the salvation of the world. There- 
fore baptism can have no other meaning than that in 
its relatione to the salvation of the world. 

Jesus Christ did not commission his apostles to go 
and preach the gospel to a saved world, but an 
unsaved world. Not to baptize a saved world, but to 
baptize an unsaved world. Now let us in imagina- 
tion go back to the time when Jesus appeared the 
last time to the eleven. Let us look at the world as 
it then was. Suppose yourself to be one of the num- 
ber that u sat at meat" and that you hear these 
words addressed to you — to yourself. Do you think 
you would have misunderstood ? Do you think you 
could have misunderstood them ? " And he said 
unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned." 

Here it is. So it is. And so it will be when all 
the present tongues of strife and debate shall be silent 
in death. 

Here we have baptism in its relation to the world, 
and primitively it has no other relation. According 
to this new and original revelation who shall be saved ? 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVEKSY. 305 

He that believeth ? -ZVb. He that is baptized? No. 
Who then ? He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved. The believer shall be baptized, and the 
baptized shall be saved. Shall be saved belongs to 
the institution. These words, shall be saved, are part 
of the institution in its original form, as the words 
" this do in remembrance of me" are a part of the 
original supper. These meanings were primary — 
determined by the institutor himself. Not affixes, 
not consequent ; but first — primary, and therefore 
every other meaning is only secondary and subordi- 
nate. For the same reason that Jesus commanded 
the apostles to baptize, the apostles commanded sin- 
ners to be baptized. The truth of this will be seen 
from the apostles' preaching to the world — -their 
preaching the gospel to every creature as they were 
commanded. 

1. " Now when they heard this they were pricked 
in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of 
the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do ? 
Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for 
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of 
the Holy Spirit/ ' Now we have four parties to 
testify to the primary meaning of baptism. Jesus, 
Mark, Peter, and Luke. Jesus spoke and Mark 
recorded his words. Peter spoke and Luke recorded 
his words. All these were under the direction of the 
same infinite and unerring spirit. Of Peter and the 
other apostles it is said they spake as the Spirit gave 
them utterance. They all spake and wrote on the 
same subject, namely, the meaning of baptism for the 
first time enunciated. Jesus said, " He that believ- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved.' ' So Mark testi- 
20 



306 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

fied. Peter said, Repent and be baptized every one 
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission 
of sins. So Luke testified. The promise shall be 
saved and the promise for the remission of sins are 
the same promise, and the difference in formal state- 
ment was, because Jesus commanded apostles what to 
do, and apostles commanded sinners what to do. 
The object was the same. Jesus, through Peter, 
promised three thousand sinners remission of sins, 
salvation in his name. Saved in the sense of remission 
of sins is the primary design of baptism. The apos- 
tles commanded baptism to qualified subjects for 
remission of sins, and they never commanded baptism 
for any other object. To the Jews on Pentecost 
Peter stated baptism first, and then the reason for it. 
" Repent and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," was 
the order of statement. But to the Gentiles at 
Cesarea he stated the reason, " remission of sins," 
first and then baptism. " To him give all the proph- 
ets witness, that through his name whosoever believ- 
eth in him shall receive remission of sins." " And 
he commanded them to be baptized in the name of 
the Lord." This is the order of statement in this 
place, but the sense is the same. 

Jesus, by the mouth of Ananias, delivered the fol- 
lowing message to Saul, "And now why tarriest 
thou ? Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy 
sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Jesus said, 
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
He explained his own meaning of these words, at 
Jerusalem, at Cesarea, and at Damascus, by chosen 
men speaking under the influence of his own Holy 
Spirit. For, surely Jesus would not inspire the same 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 307 

man to tell the Jews to be saved in one way, and 
afterwards inspire him to tell the Gentiles to be 
saved in another way, and then inspire another man 
to tell Saul to be saved in yet another way. He 
would not have required three thousand Jews to be 
baptized for one object, and a household to be bap- 
tized for another object, and Saul, a vessel chosen for 
apostleship, for another object. But these remarks 
are gratuitous. The plain historic statements do not 
need them. These baptisms were all commanded by 
the same authority. The reason, for every divine 
positive ordinance, both under the law and under the 
gospel, were always the same. This was true of cir- 
cumcision, of the passover, of Pentecost, of the Sab- 
bath day, etc. To change the primary meaning of 
any ordinance is to change the ordinance, for the 
command would no longer be accompanied with the 
same motive to obedience. And to give different rea- 
sons to different persons at different times would 
destroy the significance of any positive law ; for this 
would make the reason of the command uncertain 
and doubtful, as the subject could have no well- 
defined object in view. The truth of this is fully 
illustrated by the many conflicting meanings assigned 
to baptism at the present time. This must be so 
until its primary meaning shall be replaced, and sin- 
ners shall be made to understand what the Lord 
meant by the words, "He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved f and the words of Peter, on the 
first preaching of the gospel, " Repent and be bap- 
tized every one of you ; in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of sins," shall be as distinctly 
marked in the mind as they were then. 

The Scriptures are not barren in illustration and 



308 the baptAmal controversy. 

proof on the primary meaning of baptism. Much 
less than the testimony offered would be sufficient for 
any unbeclouded mind ; but in the present bewilder- 
ment we must have " line upon line ;" then, 

2. " The like figure whereunto even baptism doth 
also now save us." This looks like a response to the 
words of Christ, " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." There is an intimate connection 
between these passages. What that connection is can 
be determined only by examining the texts in their 
own times and circumstances. G-o preach the gospel. 
When Jesus spoke these words the gospel had not yet 
been preached by any man, or to any man. He that 
believeth. At that time there was not a man under 
heaven that believed, in the full sense of the word 
believeth ; for Jesus had not yet ascended to heaven, 
neither was he yet glorified, nor was he yet crowned 
"Lord of all." And is baptized. At that time 
there was not one baptized man in that sense. Shall 
be saved. At that time there was not one saved man 
in that sense, and not until seven days after. 

" The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also 
now save us." Peter said this thirty years after 
Christ had ascended. Baptism doth also now save 
us. At the time of this text the gospel had been 
preached for thirty years, and believed by many, who 
had been baptized and saved. What was future in 
the time of the first text, was present in the time of 
second text. What was promise in the time of the 
first text, was realization in the time of the second 
text ; but the thought in both is the same, differing 
only as the future differs from the present, and as 
promise differs from full fruition. He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved. This is authoritative. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 309 

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now 
save us. This is responsive. No language could 
have been selected that would have expressed the 
primary meaning of baptism with more emphasis than 
this, baptism doth also now save us. 

To be satisfied with being scripturally right on the 
subject and mode, is like being satisfied with the husk 
without the ear, with the external without the inter- 
nal. When we say "husk," we do not speak dispar- 
agingly of the mode ; for since the world began there 
has not been an ear without a husk, or a kernel with- 
out a shell, or the power of godliness without the 
form of godliness. This is God's order. 

The controversy on subject and mode has been but 
a side issue. It has not been on the merits of the 
institution. The questions especially between immer- 
sionists should be, for what object did Jesus command 
the apostles to baptize ? and for what expressed object 
did they baptize ? Was the object church member- 
ship ? to open a door to church relations ? If so, 
church membership is the primary meaning, and 
every other meaning is secondary. If so, those who 
claim that remission of sins is the primary meaning, 
do greatly err, and their error must be a matter of 
easy showing. Both meanings, i. e., church member- 
ship and remission of sins, cannot be primary. If 
one is, the other is not. Did Jesus say anything 
about church membership when he instituted baptism ? 
Did the apostles make church membership the motive 
to obedience ? If so, where is the text ? 

We freely admit that church membership is the first 
consequent meaning of baptism ; but that consequent 
design rests entirely on inference. The first state- 
ment that looks in that direction is Acts 2 : 41 : 



310 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

" Then they that gladly received his word were bap- 
tized : and the same day there were added unto them 
about three thousand souls." But this does not say 
that they were baptized for church membership. In 
the 38th verse they were commanded to be baptized 
for a very different object. But the text says the 
baptized were added. Then we have to infer that 
120 disciples were the church. But this is an infer- 
ence ; for Luke does not say that the 120 were the 
church, nor yet that the three thousand were added 
to the church. The inference is legitimate ; but it is 
after all but an inference. In the 47th verse we read, 
" And the Lord added daily the saved to the church." 
But it is not said that those who were daily added to 
the church were baptized ; but we have a right to 
infer that they were baptized. That they were saved 
is not inference, therefore the inference would be that 
they were added to the church because theywere 
saved, rather than because they were baptized. But 
from the preceding context, we would be led to this 
conclusion : that the Lord added them to his church 
because they submitted daily to the saving process 
himself had ordained, and was then preached by the 
apostles. But u saved " stands in more intimate con- 
nection with " added " than baptized, for the latter is 
only an inference. 

" For as many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ, have put on Christ." This passage is mainly 
relied upon as proof that the first object of baptism 
is church membership ; but the apostle does not say 
so. He says not one word about the church, there- 
fore the proof sought for can be gathered only by 
a course of reasoning, i. e., that as Christ is the head 






THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 311 

of the church, hence to be baptized into Christ is to 
be baptized into the church. 

But this does not say that church membership is 
the design of baptism. Again it is inferred that 
baptism is the door into the church because all the 
churches are addressed as baptized persons. That 
baptism is inductive into church relations is purely 
inferential ; for there is not one passage that says so. 
It is not an expressed design of baptism by Jesus 
Christ or by any one of his apostles. Church mem- 
bership is a consequence of baptism — a resultant and 
not an expressed meaning of the ordinance. Such 
are the suggestions of the inspired record. This 
resultant meaning has displaced the only expressed 
meaning of the words of Christ, shall be saved, and 
the words of the apostles, for the remission of sins. 
When therefore converts in their baptism are 
instructed to look to church membership as the 
Christ-ordained motive, they are mislead — they are 
defrauded, and have not received into their hearts 
the happy-making promise of Christ, shall be 
saved. And that is not the most serious consequence 
of substituting another design for^ the real design. 
By this change in the meaning of the ordinance the 
sinner only takes upon himself the duties of church 
life. He confesses no felt need of being saved. The 
words of Christ, u He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved/' imply just such an acknowledgment, 
for why should a believer be baptized to be saved if he 
did not feel a need to be saved ? To illustrate this 
thought, let us refer to the converts on Pentecost. 
Under the preaching of the gospel they were pricked 
in the heart from a sense of their guilt, and appealed 
to the apostles in this time of need. When, there- 



312 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

fore, they consented to be baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, they confessed 
their sinfulness in the sight of God, before all Jeru- 
salem. Be baptized for the remission of sins was the 
apostle's command, and with the signs of super- 
natural confirmation before them they knew that this 
was the only way of salvation from their guilt and its 
consequences. When they were baptized under these 
instructions, they confessed their sins. Not in that 
vague and general sense in which all men confess 
themselves to be sinners, but in the real publican 
style, " God, be merciful to me a sinner." Perhaps 
the self-complaisant Pharisee would have confessed 
himself a sinner in the general sense. A man that 
would not confess himself a sinner in the popular 
sense, would be laughed at even by the ungodly. 
But when a man consents to be baptized for the 
remission of sins, he makes an earnest, heart-felt con- 
fession of sins not to be misunderstood. 

We doubt not but this Christ-commanded reason 
for baptism makes the ordinance more humiliating 
and distasteful than the action of an immersion ; but 
there was both Wisdom and goodness in placing this 
personal humiliation between Christ and the sinner. 
It cuts the heart-strings of his pride, and shows him 
the vanity of his self-reliance to obtain the forgive- 
ness of his sins by expedients of his own. Besides, 
it will be remembered and referred to through life, as 
a satisfactory test of the integrity of his motives when 
he came to Christ — when he came to terms with 
Christ and was baptized in his name for the remission 
of his sins. And according to his confidence in the 
promise of Christ, " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved," so will be his assurance of the remis- 






THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 313 

sion of his past sins. So long as he is a believer the 
promise of Christ, shall be saved, will be satisfactory, 
more satisfactory than a thousand impulses. 

Could the three thousand on Pentecost have been 
seeking church relations before there was a church ? 
The church which Christ built had neither name nor 
history in Jerusalem at that time. And the same 
was true in all Gentile cities, when the gospel was 
first preached. How could the early converts have 
been baptized with a view to church relations, when 
there was no church in their locality? They could 
not have inferred church relations, as we can now, 
for they had not the premises from which such infer- 
ence could be deduced. Moreover, the apostles said 
not one word about the church or church relations 
when they preached the gospel to the unbaptized. 
How came it, then, that all denominations, Baptists 
not excepted, make church relations the motive for 
baptism ? To be baptized is to join the church, and 
to join the church is to be baptized. These phrases 
are synonyms, and show the popular sentiment on this 
subject. 

It is said that all denominations hold baptism to be 
for the remission of sins in all their standard works, 
as Calvin's Institutes, Watson's Institutes, their com- 
mentaries and creeds. At first view this would seem 
to be true, but on a closer examination it is found to 
be not true. That we may not misrepresent them, 
we will let them speak for themselves. As we cannot 
give space to all of them, we will select one creed to 
represent all parties, for in this they are one. u The 
Confession of Faith " contains as much gospel sense 
and common sense as any creed in Christendom. We 



314 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

will hear its wisdom on the many and important 
designs of baptism ; 

" CHAPTER 28, OF BAPTISM. 

" Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, 
ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn 
admission of the party baptized into the visible 
church, but also to be unto him a sign and a seal of 
the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, 
of regeneration, of remission of sins, ,, etc. 

This is a group of most important meanings 
assigned to baptism. Church membership takes 
precedence. " For the admission of the party bap- 
tized into the church." This is the primary and the 
only real meaning of baptism, while the remission of 
sins is only a secondary meaning, and of this baptism 
is only a " sign." This remote meaning of baptism, 
" remission of sins," is not a verity. Whether bap- 
tism is a " sign " of " remission of sins," past, pres- 
ent or future, the Confession does not say ; it only 
says baptism is a " sign " of this. The promise of 
remission of sins is a sign. Is it the sign of a pres- 
ent reality ? 

The word of the Lord says for the remission of sins. 
The Confession of Faith says for a sign of remission 
of sins. These statements are in contradiction. 

One read in the letter of the Scripture could under- 
stand this text, be baptized for the remission of sins, 
but how would he understand the text of the Confes- 
sion, be baptized for a sign of the remission of sins ? 
This is the old thing over again, a generation u seek- 
eth after a sign." So determined is this generation 
to have a sign, that it has changed that which is a 
promise of present reality into a sign — a substance 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 315 

into a shadow. It is not true that Presbyterians and 
the parties they fairly represent on this question hold 
baptism for remission of sins in any intelligible or 
appreciable sense. This "sign" theory of baptism 
is of long standing. It has given form and coloring 
to religious thought — to faith and practice. And the 
only expressed design of baptism has been lost to the 
many on account of this departure from the plain 
Scripture teaching. Hence debate after debate has 
followed. Representative preachers, men of great 
learning and ability, have joined issue on the design 
of baptism, as in the elaborate discussion between A. 
Campbell and Dr. N. L. Rice. The proposition 
agreed upon by the parties was in formal statement, 
" Christian baptism is for the remission of past sins." 
Mr. Campbell affirms ; Mr. Rice denies. 

The affirmant in his third address read from Cal- 
vin, chap. 15. We have space but for one paragraph, 
Calvin says : 

"From baptism our faith derives three advantages, 
which require to be distinctly considered. The first 
is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as a symbol 
and token of our purification, or to express my mean- 
ing more fully, it resembles a legal instrument prop- 
erly attested by which he assures us that all our sins 
are canceled, effaced, and obliterated, so that they 
will never appear in his sight, or come into his remem- 
brance, or be imputed to us. For he commands all 
ivho believe to be baptized for the remissisn of their 
sins. Therefore those who have imagined that bap- 
tism is nothing more than a mark or a sign by which 
we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear 
the insignia of their sovereign as a mark of their 
profession, have not considered that which was the 



316 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

principal thing in their baptism, which is that we 
ought to receive it with this promise, ' He that believ- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved'' " Mark 16 : 16. 

The affirmant read this to prove that Calvin agreed 
with him on the proposition — Christian baptism is 
for the remission of past sins. Who would suppose 
that Calvin could be read with equal point and pro- 
priety on the negative ? 

Dr. Rice responded : " He (Campbell) tells us, 
that Calvin agrees with him on this subject; and he 
read an extract from his Institutes to prove it. But 
he has evidently snatched up a few words hastily, 
which seemed to favor his view, without examining 
the connection. Calvin not only does not sustain 
him, but does not even approximate his ground. I 
will read from his Institutes ; book 4, chapter 15, 
section 1. "Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which 
we are admitted into the society of the church,* in 
order that being incorporated into Christ, we may be 
numbered among the children of God. Now it has 
been given to us by God for these ends, which I have 
shown to be common to all the sacraments, first to 
promote our faith toward him ; secondly, to testify 
our confession before men." * * u Such, pre- 
cisely, is the doctrine of our confession of faith, and 
the doctrine for which I contend. But I will read 
another passage from this same chapter, which the 
gentleman seems not to have noticed, and which 
proves conclusively that Calvin did not teach the doc- 
trine for which he contends. Section 14 : We may 
see this exemplified in Cornelius the centurion, who 
after having received the remission of his sins, and 
the visible grace of the Holy Spirit, was baptized, 
not with a view to obtain by baptism a more ample 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 317 

remission of sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, 
and an increase of confidence from the pledge.'' 

Now what of the testimony of Calvin on the prop- 
osition, "Baptism is for the remission of past sins." 
A. Campbell quoted him only as a concurring wit- 
ness, i. #., that Calvin understood the design of bap- 
tism as himself did. And Dr. Rice quoted Calvin 
to prove that he was against his opponent, and with 
him. Calvin was both on the side of the affirmant, 
and on the side of the respondent. He said, " From 
baptism our faith derives three advantages, * * by 
which he says that all our sins are canceled, effaced, 
obliterated, etc. For he commands all who believe 
to be baptized for the remission of their sins ." No 
language could more clearly express agreement with 
A. Campbell, that baptism was for the remission of 
past sins. But his opponent in debate read from the 
same book, that baptism was not for the remission of 
past sins. Dr. Rice read from Calvin, as before 
stated, "Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which 
we are admitted into the church. * * We may 
see this exemplified in Cornelius the centurion, who 
after having received the remission of his sins, and 
the visible grace of the Holy Spirit, was baptized, not 
with a view to obtain by baptism a more ample remis- 
sion of sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, and an 
increase of confidence from the pledge." The dis- 
putants arrayed Calvin against Calvin, and all they 
accomplished by an appeal to this witness was that 
the witness had contradicted himself, and his testi- 
mony was worth nothing on the affirmative or the 
negative. That having said in his Institutes that 
baptism was for remission of sins, and that baptism 
was not for remission of sins ; therefore as an expound- 



318 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

er of Scripture John Calvin was not entitled to any 
respect. Who that has a surplus tear would not 
give it to the great reformer ? 

- Just as " The Confession of Faith " and John Cal- 
vin stand on the design of baptism, so all the Reform- 
ers, Creeds, and the Protestant ministry stand. 
How such a host of learned men and profound logi- 
cians should have been betrayed on a subject of the 
plainest historic statement into such contradiction 
and inconsistency is a mystery. But the reason of 
this marvel, was not, and is not in their heads nor in 
their hearts, but in what they have to do. They 
have to be faithful to the word of God, and faithful 
to their own theories of salvation, as deduced from 
the word of God. 

These being antagonistic they have a two-fold work 
to do. The Scripture statements that baptism is for 
the remission of sins are so frequent and emphatic that 
this meaning of the ordinance must be admitted. 
But this meaning cannot be adjusted to the theory of 
salvation, as formulated by the adopted creed. Here 
is the dilemma. To deny that baptism is for the remis- 
sion of sins would be infidelity to Christ ; to admit 
that it is, would be destruction to the philosophy of 
conversion — hence Calvin said, " He commands all 
who believe to be baptized for the remission of their 
sins" italics his. This was faithful to the word of 
Christ. But when he looked at the design of bap- 
tism from the standing point of his own theory, he 
said of Cornelius, " who having received remission of 
sins/' " was baptized." In this way he could defend 
both the word of Christ and his own Institutes ; and 
in no other way could he maintain the integrity of 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 319 

the New Testament and his own theoretic exposition 
of it. When it is admitted that Jesus Christ com- 
manded all who believe to be baptized for remission 
of sins, the admission is nullified by assuming that as 
in the case of Cornelius remission of sins was received 
before baptism, or by qualifying the admission by the 
word sign. " A sign of remission of sins.'' No such 
qualification is found in the apostolic statements of 
the reason for baptism. If in the divine judgment 
such qualification would have been needful, would 
not the needed qualification have accompanied the 
command at the beginning and not have exposed the 
sinner to deception by the incautious use of language, 
for the promise appended to a present belief and 
repentance implies the present realization of the pres- 
ent promise for the remission of sins. But when the 
promise be baptized for the remission of sins is quali- 
fied by the word " sign," " sign of the remission of 
sins," it is like an indefinite promise to pay not on 
demand, nor at any time future. So the word of 
promise cannot be appropriated by the baptized 
believer, at the present, at death, or at the final 
judgment. All the evidence he receives of present 
justification from the promise of Christ, " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved," is a sign as 
doubtful in meaning as it is indefinite in time ; there- 
fore when sinners are " pricked in their heart," when 
they are agonizing for some divine assurance of par- 
don and acceptance, they are not instructed as in the 
beginning of the gospel, " Repent and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
remission of sins " — for, a sign of remission of sins 
would be no relief to a troubled heart. 

All these and other facts only prove that the prim- 



320 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

itive design of baptism with its adjuncts has been 
almost universally abandoned. 

If we were discussing an empty puerility we would 
have said enough, nay, too much. The subject is of 
the gravest importance. The best men of the church, 
the masters of language ; the leaders of the people, 
and many of the best thinkers of the long years of 
controversy have bestowed much labor to the investi- 
gation of the subject. 

When A. Campbell and N. L. Rice formed an 
issue on the design of baptism, as the representatives 
of two large bodies, there was a supposed necessity 
for the discussion of the question and both parties 
were hopeful that the debate would have a tendency 
towards settling a question of tremendous importance. 
The issue between the disputants was and is yet the 
greatest issue of the nineteenth century. The con- 
troversy on the "Design of Baptism/ ' as reported, 
occupies 125 large pages. 

It is doubtful whether the disputants or any of the 
parties fully realized the solemnity and magnitude of 
this discussion of the "Design of baptism.' ' Was 
not its meaning this, namely, to interview the author 
of the institution in regard to the design of his insti- 
tution. This was using great freedom with a divine 
lawgiver. Here the parties should have taken their 
" shoes from their feet, for they were standing on holy 
ground.' ■ Jesus Christ having ordained baptism and 
having commanded it to be preached to all the world 
and administered to every believer, he was there- 
fore more directly involved in this discussion than 
any other party. What would be elicited by this con- 
ference would directly affect his honor or dishonor. 

1. Let us then submit a few postulata. If the 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 321 

design of baptism is important to any specific end 
nothing else can be substituted for that object. 

2. If the design of baptism is not so clearly defined 
by the words of the institution that both the preacher 
and the convert may understand what that design is, 
then neither the administrator nor the subject can 
know whether they have or have not complied with 
the behest of the institutor. 

3. If the author of any institution has not defined 
the design of his institution, it never can be defined 
by another, and the institution can have no value, 
inasmuch as it has no fixed meaning. 

4. One primary design was just as important to the 
primitive preacher and believer then as now. 

The discussion on the design was more than the 
discussion on mode and subject; it entered into the 
"gist" the meaning of the law. It went into the 
inside. It was interviewing the purpose of the law- 
giver. It was putting the question to Jesus Christ ; 
have you done this or that? For both parties 
admitted design ; namely, that Jesus Christ had some 
design when he gave the command, " Go ye therefore 
and teach all nations, baptizing them." To deter- 
mine what that design was, was the motive of the dis- 
cussion. It was implied in this great issue, in which 
all Protestant Christians felt a deep interest, that the 
design of baptism was left undetermined, or its mean- 
ing was obscure and doubtful. This was the state of 
the popular mind. But the disputants affirmed that 
the design of baptism was determined, and to con- 
vince the undecided was the avowed object of this 
most learned and protracted controversy. The 
affirmant pledged himself to prove that " Christian 
Baptism was for the remission of past sins." The 
21 



322 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

respondent pledged himself to disprove this proposi- 
tion. The affirmant defended only this one design. 
The respondant denied this and defended many 
designs, to disprove the affirmation by establishing 
some three or four other and conflicting designs with- 
out a direct issue on the primary design. 

In this discussion, and every other of the kind, both 
the wisdom and goodness of Jesus Christ became 
directly involved, for if he required a blind submis- 
sion, this command was conspicuous ; if he would 
make his purpose plain and could not, then he was 
wanting in wisdom. Would the hearers look with 
more admiration upon Jesus Christ, as a wise and 
beneficent lawgiver ? Would they have more humble 
faith in Christ, and be disposed to a more ready and 
cheerful obedience ? Perhaps but few of the hearers 
would understand the logic of the argument, but they 
would not fail to see that Jesus Christ was divided 
between the disputants, and by their advocating 
designs of the same institution contradictory the one 
to the other, their religious appreciation of baptism 
would not be much enhanced. With but small excep- 
tions such have been the results of the baptismal 
controversy upon the masses. Whatever has been 
done through all these years of strife for a better 
understanding and a more scriptural practice, (and 
there has been much) has been the result of patient 
teaching, and Bible reading. These ends have been 
promoted by discussion ; for it is not supposable that 
both parties are equal in truth, competency, and 
candor. 

To recall a question on the first page of this book 
we ask again ; was there ever, is there now, any rea- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 323 

son for this baptismal strife ? If there is, the reason 
must be found in the ordinance itself, and if it is, all 
the wisdom of heaven and of earth cannot exculpate 
Jesus Christ from the consequences of this strife. It 
will not relieve him to assume that the cause of the 
disagreement among Christians is the reason of the 
strife, and that is caused by different translations of 
the Scriptures, for those who read and understand 
the original text are more divided than those who 
read any one of the many translations. If Jesus 
Christ has made a perfect exhibit of baptism, which 
we have a right to assume, the reason of the disagree- 
ment does not inhere to the ordinance, but a perver- 
sion of it. Then those who have perverted baptism 
and all who are defending their perversions are 
responsible for the consequences, for all the 
reproach this controversy has brought upon Christ 
personally, and for all the divisions that followed 
from this source. i 

The Lord reproved the Jews for a changing his 
ordinances.' ' See Isa. 24 : 5. To change the form 
or design of a divine religious ordinance is to assume 
a divine prerogative, and that God who is jealous of 
his honor will not allow such an invasion of his rights 
with impunity. He will give all such to " eat of the 
fruit of their own doings, and cause them to be filled 
with their own devices." 

The intimate connection between baptism and the 
remission of sins gives great significance to the ordi- 
nance. Should it be thought a thing incredible that 
the gracious Christ would have appointed just such 
an ordinance for such an object ? We do not mean 
to say that an immersion in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins should be thought consistent 



324 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

with human tastes and proprieties. We do not mean 
that it should be accepted on any philosophical 
grounds, so neither should it be rejected on such 
grounds. On the ground of a discernible fitness no 
divine ordinance would commend itself to human 
approval. Who can see any visible fitness between 
eating a crumb of bread and a sip of wine, and exces- 
sive human and divine suffering ? The papacy sees 
more fitness between a crucifix and the suffering of 
Christ. And to gaze upon a cross has more emo- 
tional influence upon the sensuous than the memorials 
commanded by Jesus Christ himself. Would the 
wise in Israel have seen propriety in John's baptism 
as a means of preparing a people for the Lord and 
then make the coming of the Son of God up straight 
out of the water the occasion of his being made mani- 
fest to Israel ? And I knew him not, (said John) 
but that he might be made manifest to Israel, there- 
fore am I come baptizing with water. The means 
and the object are happily blended by the Baptist 
and forcibly expressed, " that he might be made 
manifest to Israel, therefore I am come baptizing with 
water." Would the Jewish senate have counseled 
such means for the manifestation of their Messiah to 
Israel ? When they saw the God-ordained means 
and the end accomplished, they "rejected the counsel 
of God against themselves/ ' But the humble, the 
teachable saw a divine propriety and "justified God. ,; 
See Luke 7 : 29, 30. 

With the peculiarities of divine ordinances in mind, 
we ask again : Should it be thought a thing incredi- 
ble that Jesus Christ would require the contrite 
believer to be baptized in his name, for the remission 
of sins ? In order to a better understanding of bap- 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 325 

tism we must have a better understanding of remis- 
sion of sins. In the great departure from the truth, 
baptism and remission of sins fell together, and they 
must and will rise together. 

Repentance and remission of sins were the objects 
for which Christ both died and rose again. u And 
said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it 
behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead 
the third day : And that repentance and remission 
should be preached in his name, among all nations, 
beginning at Jerusalem/' Luke 24 : 45, 46. 

Every body knows what it was to preach repent- 
ance, and how it was preached. To preach what 
men should do or what they should not do is a simple 
process. But what it now is, to preach remission of 
sins is not so clear. Remission of sins can be 
preached only as an amnesty or as a tender. Remis- 
sion of sins can be preached only in the passive 
voice, as the sinner in no case can remit his own 
sins. In Scripture style remission of sins is a nega- 
tive work. It is to absolve the sinner from a debt 
due to justice, then it is called "blotting out." 
Acts 3 : 19. It is an act of obliteration, then it is 
called " washing away. r Acts 22 : 16. And Rev. 
1 : 5, u Unto him that loved us and washed us from 
our sins in his blood." Once at least remission of 
sins is in the affirmative. " That whosoever 
believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." 
Acts 10 : 43. Now the giver is the active party, 
but the receiver is passive. These few examples are 
sufficient to show the Scripture style on this subject 
—the remission of sins as preached to all alien 
sinners by the command of Jesus Christ, beginning 
at Jerusalem. This only relates to the tender of 



326 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

remission of sins, by Jesus Christ. The personal 
application of this preaching remission of sins is 
another thing. The willingness to forgive an 
offender and the actual doing so, and the assurance 
of the remission of sins, are all different steps in the 
same process. Now let us look at the personal appli- 
cation of the words of Christ, " and that repentance 
and remission of sins should be preached/ ' for in 
the personal application only is the grace. 

The personal application of these provisions to 
sinners were committed to the apostles, and to them 
alone can we look for instruction. We must again 
refer to the second chapter of Acts ; their first preach- 
ing of repentance and remission of sins. But now we 
refer to this passage for another purpose. The sub- 
ject presents itself in a variety of aspects and shades 
of thought. " Then Peter said unto them, Repent 
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins/ ' etc. 

Repent — The command repent was in the active 
voice, but be baptized was in the passive voice. For 
as the sinner does not remit his own sins, so neither 
is he commanded to baptize himself. The remission 
of his sins is the act of another, and his baptism is 
the act of another. Neither the remission nor the 
baptism are things done by him, but for him. And 
both are the work of Christ through the provisions of 
the gospel of his grace. 

In forgiveness, whether God or man is the forgiv- 
ing party, the guilty sinner is, from the nature of the 
case, passive. In complying with the conditions of 
forgiveness the sinner must be active, but the condi- 
tions, or in a gospel sense, the moral preparations, are 
not the forgiveness. To be forgiven in all cases 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 327 

implies moral fitness. This thought is clearly 
expressed by the words of Jesus to his disciples. 
" Take heed to yourselves : If thy brother trespass 
against thee rebuke him; if he repent forgive him." 
This is repentance and forgiveness. The rebuke was 
to lead the trespassing brother to repentance, and 
the repentance was to bring him into that state of 
mind and heart that he might be forgiven. That 
repentance and forgiveness might make him a better 
man. This illustrates the doctrine of Christ on 
repentance and the forgiveness of sins. This is to 
forgive one another, " as God for Christ's sake has 
forgiven us." 

" Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be 
a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to 
Israel and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5 : 31. How 
few of the princes of this world are saviours. With 
few exceptions they have been destroyers. But 
Jesus as God's exalted Prince gives two things to the 
rebellious. He gives them repentance ; his " good- 
ness leads them to repentance." And then he lets 
them have the benefit of their repentance. He 
makes their repentance available to them. There is 
an unavailing, fruitless repentance. "The sorrow of 
the world worketh death." " A broken spirit dryeth 
up the bones." But the repentance which God's 
exalted Prince gives is a repentance unto life. 
" Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repent- 
ance unto life." So said the Jews when they had 
heard Peter's defense for having offered the salvation 
of the gospel to the Gentiles. They said, "also." 
As God has granted to us Jews repentance unto life, 
so hath he also unto the Gentiles grantedrepentanees 
unto life. This repentance looks life-ward. It look 



328 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

to the forgiveness of sin. It is the proclamation of a 
sovereign to a rebellious province, to an alienated 
world. A proclamation of repentance to a revolted 
world without an accompanying tender of forgiveness 
would only aggravate the case. 

" Him hath God exalted with his own right hand 
to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to 
Israel and forgiveness of sins." This lets us fully 
into the New Testament style, after the Lord had 
risen from the dead. These designs of mercy, this 
amnesty, repentance, and forgiveness enter into the 
whole framework of the gospel — the glad tidings. 
This is all-pervading. Repentance and remission of 
sins was the burden of the apostle's preaching, as 
repentance and remission of sins were the two great 
and all comprehending objects for which Christ died 
and rose again. 

The sameness of design between Christ's deepest 
humiliation, " even unto death " — the " death of the 
cross," and his highest exaltation, even to the throne, 
are in every human view a strange coincidence. 
That we may see this, let us place two passages before 
cited, side by side. " Then opened he their under- 
standing that they might understand the Scriptures, 
and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it 
behooved Christ to suffer and rise from the dead the 
third day : And that repentance and remission of 
sins should be preached in his name, among all 
nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are wit- 
nesses of these things." Luke 24: 45, 46, 47. 
" The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom ye 
slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted 
with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 329 

give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." 
Acts 5: 30, 81. 

What did Jesus say it behooved him to die and 
rise from the dead for ? That repentance and remis- 
sion of sins should be preached? What does the 
apostle^say Christ was exalted for ? To give repent- 
ance and forgiveness of sins. How strange in every 
human view that two such wide extremes should meet 
in the same person, and for the same object. This 
is the Lord's doing. This coincidence was not unpre- 
meditated, neither could it have been a fiction. Per- 
haps the reader will say ; if I had this repentance and 
remission of sins in an example, wrought out in a 
practical case, then I could understand the subject 
which has so long occupied my most serious thoughts. 

Well, we have many examples. We shall cite but 
one, and that perhaps the most familiar. We will 
place it with the two passages last cited ; for it is the 
practical out-working of both. " Wherefore let all 
the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath 
made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both 
Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this they 
were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and 
the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren what shall 
we do ? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christf for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

The harmony between these passages is too clear 
to be misunderstood. The latter is a report of the 
first official act of him whom God had exalted to be a 
Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and forgive- 
ness of sins. As a sovereign, the Prince let three 
thousand Jews have the full benefit of their repent- 



330 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

ance, and as a Saviour he granted the same number 
— all who repented at that time, the remission of sins. 
But this grant, let it be understood, was the official 
act of him whom God had made both Lord and 
Christ. It was therefore his prerogative to dictate 
the terms of forgiveness. This the exalted Prince 
did when he said by the vocal organs of Peter ; Be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins. Be baptized. This is in 
every case the form of the command. What hinders 
me to be baptized f And he commanded them to be 
baptized. Arise and be baptized. The command 
cannot be given in any other form. It cannot be 
expressed in the active form. It is in exact corre- 
spondence with the tender of forgiveness which is in 
all cases in the passive form, as respects the subject 
of forgiveness. 

Every other command, whether it relates to con- 
version, worship, or the labors of love is in the active 
form — what the person himself shall do. That 
Jesus Christ has required but one act of passive obe- 
dience, and that that one act is stamped with this 
peculiarity, is worthy of consideration. And that 
that act of passive submission on the part of the per- 
son baptized is in more immediate connection with 
remission of sins than any other, makes the command 
still more worthy of serious thought. Repentance is 
more remote to remission of sins than baptism, and 
faith is more remote than repentance, but baptism 
and remission of sins are brought into such close 
proximity that separation is impossible ; be baptized 
for remission of sins. Who can dissolve the intimacy 
of this connection ? Who can suggest a go-between ? 
Again, be baptized and wash away your sins. Who 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 331 

will have the daring to break these links ? The 
apostles and Ananias observed the order and connec- 
tion of Jesus. He said, " and is baptized shall be 
saved" The connection between baptized and remis- 
sion of sins is too close to force the words " sign " 
and "seal " between the command, be baptized, and 
the promise appended. The Prince exalted to give 
repentance and forgiveness of sins, might have placed 
something else into immediate connection with remis- 
sion of sins. He had the whole world of fact and 
speech and imagery before him from which to choose 
what was best adapted to accomplish the purpose. 
And we are sure if he had been influenced in his 
choice by the tastes and wisdom of men he would not 
have brought baptism and remission of sins into such 
a relation. He might have made some virtuous or 
meritorious act the immediate connection of forgive- 
ness. Or he might have made some self-affliction, 
like penance, the immediate basis of promise. Or he 
might have made supplication personal or interces- 
sory, as in the case of Job and his friends, the ground 
of forgiveness. Or he might have made the par- 
doned sinner depend upon some revelation by 
dream or vision, or some verbal revelation by him- 
self, angel, or spirit for assurance. We can imagine 
many other ways by which the knowledge of sins 
forgiven might have been communicated to the 
repenting sinner. Why the Omniscient Christ did 
not command something else ; something that the sin- 
sick, the sin-convicted, could do themselves, and for 
themselves, we know not. But that he did not we do 
know. It is enough for us to know that, " so it 
seemed good in his sight.'' We might give many 
opinions as to the probable motive of the divine 



332 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

choice, but they would be only our opinion, and 
therefore not entitled to any respect. 

But this one thing is so strongly impressed upon 
the command, Repent and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
sins, that we cannot forbear the mention. If it is 
creature-humbling^ it is Christ-exalting '. 

CONCLUSION. 

To the Unbaptized Header : — We may have con- 
vinced you of the sinfulness of the baptismal contro- 
versy. It may be very unsatisfactory to you. You 
may turn away from it with feelings of displeasure, 
and after all you may not be profited by what you 
have read. To excite a virtuous prejudice against 
what is wrong is one thing, and to conciliate the 
understanding and the affections in favor of what is 
right is another thing. The former is usually an 
easy task, but the latter is often difficult. Now, if I 
have done the first and have failed in the second, my 
labor is lost, and you have read for naught. 

There is an unexpressed meaning in this contro- 
versy to which let me ask your most candid attention. 
Think of its length and its breadth. Think of the 
amount of learning and of talent that has been 
expended upon it. Then again the many that have 
been actively engaged in this strife have been among 
the best, most zealous, devoted men of the church, 
whose motives are above honorable suspicion. These 
undeniable facts are evidence of the intrinsic import- 
ance of the ordinance in dispute. If in the estima- 
tion of the parties in debate baptism was a thing of 
no importance in its mode, subject, or design — if 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 333 

being baptized in infancy or the years of faith, in 
this way or that way or no way, were things equal 
and indifferent, the controversy would have become 
stale and distasteful, and would have ceased for the 
want of interest. But the high estimate placed upon 
baptism as a gospel ordinance has given sufficient 
vitality to the controversy to make it a living issue to 
the present. And how is it now ? Never were the 
differences more warmly contested than now. The 
parties instead of becoming more indifferent are 
become more decided, and new modes of defense are 
being sought out, as in the recent learned volumes of 
Dr. Dale, who has changed the base of operations on 
one line, but it yet remains to be seen whether th 
other captains will co-operate with him from his new 
point of attack. If they do, it will be a concession 
that their former positions were not defensible. 

Perhaps this long and fretted controversy has given 
more significance and importance to baptism than the 
most perfect agreement could have done. And if 
Jesus Christ has suffered in one way, some compen- 
sation has been made to him in another way. God 
often brings good out of evil and makes the weak- 
nesses and follies of men to praise him. Then again, 
things most important are always most exposed to 
perversion and abuse. Such perversions are often the 
result of positive ignorance, but more frequently the 
result of imperfect knowledge. And again, things of 
the most intrinsic worth are often more damaged by 
the indiscretion of over-zealous friends than by 
avowed enemies. This is matter of every day obser- 
vation. The truth of this is exemplified in the first 
departure from the primitive baptism. When the 
fathers began to immerse infants for the forgiveness 



334 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

of original sin, they did not premeditate a perversion 
of the ordinance. This was not the motive. But 
they ascribed to baptism abstractly a saving efficacy 
it did not possess by divine appointment, namely, 
that baptism alone possessed a sufficient amount of 
divine grace to wash from the soul of an infant the 
guilt of Adam's sin. This, we doubt not, was the 
result of ignorance, both as respects the sin and the 
means of purging it away. It was a " zeal, but not 
according to knowledge." And from the same mo- 
tives and a mixture of ignorance and partial knowl- 
edge the substitutes for immersion were introduced. 
But let it be remembered that the abuse of a thing is 
no argument against the thing, but the highest com- 
mendation of it. There is nothing in all the works of 
God, in nature, or religion, too sacred for men to per- 
vert and abuse. You would not object to marriage 
because some parties die in law before they die as 
animals. Neither would you refuse a genuine bill 
because of the counterfeit ; for you know that the 
counterfeit is evidence 0/ the genuine, just as false 
baptisms are evidence of the true. 

I beseech, then, let not this strife in the church turn 
you away from Jesus Christ and his salvation. The 
exalted Prince and Saviour has made the tender of 
repentance and the forgiveness of sins to you per- 
sonally, and you can accept and enjoy the blessing. 
You can have the self-consciousness and the personal 
honor of taking a position for Christ and for the 
truth. You can do this, even on this controverted 
question, without being a partisan or incurring the 
disfavor of either party ; for, after all, they all agree 
in the Lord's way, differing only on their own ways. 

This statement you have heard again and again. 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 335 

But there is such a thing as hearing and not under- 
standing, as seeing and not perceiving. When the 
contradictory teachings and practice of the churches 
are before you, you are led to the belief that the oppo- 
site is the truth in the case, i. e., that they do not 
agree on baptism in any way. 

For your sake and for Christ's sake, we shall be at 
some pains to elucidate the facts of the case. To do 
this, let us suppose a general conference on the sub- 
ject of baptism, and all the parties shall have the 
right of representation and speech, and while the 
convention is in session an infant is presented before 
the delegation for baptism, and the question on the 
baptism of this infant is submitted to the house, with 
the understanding that there must be unanimity. 
The inevitable result would be that the parents could 
not be gratified. But suppose again, a believer asks 
for baptism, provided he can have the undivided con- 
sent of the convention. Now, dear reader, you know 
what the result would be. As the applicant has 
resolved that he will not accept a sectarian baptism, 
he has submitted the mode of his baptism for agree- 
ment. Unanimity on this at first view may' be doubt- 
ful. On the question of pouring the house is divided. 
On the question of sprinkling the house is divided. 
On the question of immersion the house is divided. 
So the question stands on the first balloting. Now 
the question takes this form : if the candidate is 
poured or sprinked will all the representatives receive 
him into their respective churches ? Some will and 
some will not. So the question stands now. Then 
the chair puts the question on immersion thus : If 
the applicant is immersed will all receive him into 



336 THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 

church relation ? All answer in the affirmative, and 
the baptism agreed to by all is administered. 

Now, why did the convention disagree on the 
infant subject, and all agree on the believing subject ? 
Why did the conference disagree on pouring and 
sprinkling and agree on immersion ? Because all 
know that the immersion of a believer is from heaven 
and not of men. Just as this conference stood and 
acted on the questions submitted, so the religions 
would stand on the same questions. This supposed 
case is not fiction, but fact, an illustration of fact and 
fully justifies the statement that the disagreements 
and controversy are not about the Lord's way, but 
about men's ways. 

Let me then say to my unbaptized reader, we can 
justify the ways of God to men, and you can justify 
the ways of God to your own conscience. You can 
be baptized as the Lord has directed. You can be a 
free-born citizen in the kingdom of heaven. You can 
ring the door-bell of every house with the assurance 
of a welcome entrance. 

Forget not the final amen of the " revelation of 
Jesus Christ/' " Blessed are they that do his com- 
mandments, that they may have right to the tree of 
life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." 

Notwithstanding the strifes and disagreements 
in the denominational churches, everything remains 
unchanged as respects individual rights and duties. 
Your relations to Christ are the same and his rela- 
tions to you are the same Salvation, present, future, 
and eternal, are just as desirable and just as attain- 
able as though the church was at peace on this and 
every other subject ; as if the church had but "One 
Lord, one faith, and one baptism.' ' 



THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. 337 

Every individual and any indefinite number of 
individuals, with the word of God in their hands, 
their heads and their hearts, can stand perfect and 
complete in this divine oneness, and no power can 
thrust itself between them and their glorified Lord. 
22 



PUBLICATIONS 



— OF- 



Oskaloosa, Iowa. 



We supply all publications of the Christian Church, Liberal 
discount to the Trade. 



The Baptismal Controversy ; 

Its Exceeding Sinfulness. By Eld. Jonas Hartzel. Cloth 81 50 

Paul Darst; 

Or, the Conflict of Love and Duty. By D. R. Lucas. Cloth 1 25 

Our Plea and our Mission; 

Or, is there Sufficient Reason for our Existence as a Separate 
Religious Body? By D. R. Dungan. Paper cover 10 

Modern Revivalism. 

By D. R. Dungan. This is a work for the times, vividly con- 
trasting the machinery of modern revivals with the scriptural 
method. Paper 15 

The Christian Polymathist. 

A Work Containing Essays on Pastoral Work ; Scriptural Exe- 
gesis, and Homileties, with Briefs and Skeletons of Sermons 
by ministers of various religious bodies. Arranged and 
edited by N. E. Cory Cloth , 2 00 

On the Rock; 

Or, Truth Stranger than Fiction. The story of a struggle after 
the Truth as it is found in Christ. By D. R. Dungan. 375 pp., 
cloth 1 50 

Prohibition vs. License. 

By D. R. Dungan. This little work is having, as it deserves, 
a large sale. The temperance question is the question of the 
day, and the friends of prohibition can greatly advance the 
cause by circulating this tract. Price .' $ 15 



The Divinity of Christ 



And the Duality of Man. By Eld. Jonas Hartzel, Author of 
11 The Kingdom of Heaven and its Government," "The Covenants," 
"Evidences of Christianity," "Controversial Letters," etc., etc. 
Price , 75 



PUBLICATIONS OF 



Follies of Free Thought. 



By J. W. Monser. A nice Tract. Written against Spiritual- 
ism and every form of Infidelity. Paper cover 20 

Western Preacher. 

By Eld. J. M. Mathes. This is a valuable book containing 
thirty sermons by some twenty-four of our leading preachers, 
living and dead. It contains a splendid lithographic portrait 
of the author. Price 2 00 

Voice of the Seven Thunders. 

By Eld. J. L. Martin. This is perhaps the most wonderful book 
of this book-making age. It is composed of a series of lectures 
en the Book of Revelation, by the late Eld. J. L. Martin, and 
is evidently the best commentary upon the Apocalypse in the 
English language. It has received the very highest commen- 
dations of the press, both religious and secular. It has been 
called " The Apocalyptic Key." It is one of the most popu- 
lar books ever published by our brethren. Eight editions of 
one thousand copies each have been sold in three years, and 
the ninth edition is out and in store. Each book has a splen- 
did lithographic portrait of the lecturer, Eld. J. L. Martin. 
Price...... : 1 50 

Morris's Letters ; 

Or, Seven Reasons for not being a Methodist. This is a splen- 
did little work of 200 pages, being a series of letters ad- 
dressed to Thomas Morris, D. D., Senior Bishop of M. E. 
Church. It has passed through many editions, and the de- 
mand for it is unabated. Price, Paper 25 

Which is the True Church ? 

By Eld. A. Ellmore. This is a valuable Tract for the times. 
Paper cover $ 15 

The Destiny of the Wicked ; 

Or, Carpenter-Hughes Debate. This is the latest and most 
thorough discussion of this thrillingly important subject, 
which is here handled by thoroughly competent men and dis- 
cussed in its most recent phases. The positions of the parties 
and the statements of the arguments have so changed in the 
last few years as to render old discussions of little value. This 
one gives an exhaustive treatment of the question as it now is. 
This is the accurate and published report of an oral debate 
held at Bloomfield, Iowa, in February, 1875, between Prof. 
G. T. Carpenter, of the Church of Christ, and Rev. John Hughes, 
Universalist. The following are the propositions considered : 

1. The Scriptures teach the final holiness and happiness of 
all mankind. 

2. The Scriptures teach that those who die in willful disobedi- 
ence to the gospel will suffer endless punishment. 

The work forms a large and neat volume of 469 pages of close- 
ly printed matter, abounding in Scripture and other quotations, 
and furnished with a textual index at the close, by means of 
which any passage used in the discussion can be readily found. 
Price 1 50 



CENTRAL BOOK CONCERN. 



Church Discipline. 

By Eld. J. Hartzel. An address delivered before the State 
Preacher's Institute, at Oskaloosa, Iowa, July 15, 1875, and pub- 
lished by order of the Institute. Paper cover 10 

Modern Phases of Skepticism. 

By D. R. Dungan. A series of lectures delivered before the 
stndents of Oskaloosa College. Cloth 1 50 



Sp 



iritualism on Trial. 



By Rev. F. W. Evans. We have recently come in possession of 
the Plates and right to publish this truly valuable work. Mr. 
Evans is one of the best debaters in the West, ii not in the 
whole country, and is the terror of all forms of infidelity. 
Every preacher, every teacher,. everybody that wants to keep 
posted on the subject should have this, the latest and most thor- 
ough refutation of modern Spiritualism. Price 1 50 

Church Contribution Record. 

With Special Rulings and Printed Headings, for keeping ac- 
count of weekly contributions 1 00 

Christian Sunday-school Teacher. 

This magazine fills a long-felt need. No Sunday-school teacher 
or officer should be without it. It thoroughly discusses the 
practical questions pertaining to the work. Its editor and most 
of its contributors have made the science of teaching a life- 
work, being practically eugaged in giving normal iustruction. 
They have, too, been long known as live Sunday-school men. 
Not only all Sunday-school teachers and officers, but day-school 
teachers and parents will find the work of sreat worth. Prof. 
S. P. Lucy, A. M., Editor ; J. T. Toof , and L. Lane, Correspond- 
ing Editors. 

TERMS, PER YEAR, IN ADVANCE. 

Single copies 60 

live copies, toone address, each 55 

Ten " " " " " 50 

The Gem. 

An Illustrated Paper for Sunday-schools. 

L WEUinLY. 

10 copies one year 5 00 

25 " " " 12 00 

50 " " " 24 50 

100 " " " 48 50 

II. SEMI-MONTHLY. 

10 copies one year s. 3 00 

25 " '< " 7 25 

50 " " " 13 50 

100 " " " 25 00 

The Weekly or Semi-monthly will be sent for six months 
atone-half the above; and for three months at one-fourth. 

No subscriptions for the weekly or semi-monthly will be re- 
ceived for less than ten copies. 



PUBLICATIONS OF 



The Eclectic Bible Lessons. 

INTEKNATIONAL SERIES. 

TERMS IN ADVANCE. 

10 copies to one address, one year 1 40 

25 u " « " " 3 25 

50 " " *« " " 6 00 

100 " * ** « « ll 00 

If one month's lessons are ordered at a time, the rates will be 

(cash with the order) as follows: 

10 copies 15 

25 " , 35 

50 " 65 

100 " ., 1 25 



Pearly Gates. 



A collection of New Songs for; the Sunday-school. By J. H. 

Rosecrans. Per copy $ 25 

Per dozen 2 50 

Per hundred.. 20 00 



Gospel Echoes. 



By R. G. Staples. A new and ehoice collection of Hymns and 
Songs for the Sunday-school, Prayer Meeting and Home Circle. 

Price, per copy 30 

Per dozen ^ 3 00 



Familiar Hymns. 



Third Edition. It is attested by many that ninety per cent, 
of the singing done by Christians in the Northwest, espec- 
ially in protracted and social meetings, is done in the use 
of the words found in this little book. To supply a vacuum 
not filled by other books ; to encourage congregational singing,; 
to save money for the poor ; to increase the facilities for each 
member of Christian families to own and carry a hymn book, 
and to a id the great missionary work, are the chief purposes 

in compiling this little selection of Hymns. Price, Cloth $ 35 

Perdozen 3 50 



Apostolic Hymns and Songs. 



By D. R. Lucas. A collection of Hymns and Songs both new 
and old for the Church, Protracted Meetings and the Sunday- 
school. Price 8 30 

Per doz 3 00 

Per hundred 25 00 



Sunday-school Cards. 



Sunday-school workers have usually found the following diffi- 
culties in the way of success : 1. The want of prompt and 
regular attendance. 2. To meet the necessary expenses of the 
school. 
To assist in overcoming these two difficulties, we have pre- 



CENTRAL BOOK CONCERN. 



pared the following Series of Cards : First, the 

FAITHFUL SERIES, 
which have proven of great service in securing the desired attend- 
ance ; and, second, the 

FINANCIAL SERIES, 
which have proven equally successful in solving ihe money 
problem. 

HOW TO WORK THE SYSTEM. 

To secure attendance, give to every pupil present, each Sun- 
day, a "Be Faithful" card, which is a certificate of attend- 
ance; and on the last Sunday in each month, redeem the " Be 
Faithful" cards with the "Ever Faithful," provided the 
pupil has as many cards as there were Sundays in the month, 
otherwise he should not receive his reward, unless his absence is 
excused by his teacher ; and on the last Sunday in each quarter, 
redeem the "Ever Faithful" cards with "The Crown." 

To secure the necessary funds, take up a collection every 
Sunday, giving to each pupil contributing a " Certificate 
of Deposit" of the denomination of the amount contributed ; 
and when the pupil has "Certificates of Deposit" repre- 
senting a certain amount, (which has been agreed upon by 
the officers or the school) redeem these with the "Faithful 
Steward." And in like manner redeem the Steward with the 
Pearl, which the pupil is to keep. 

ADVANTAGES OF OUR SYSTEM. 

1. It reduces the entire work of the Sunday-school to an ac- 
curate, practical system. 

2. It encourages regular and prompt attendance. 

3. It encourages punctuality. 

4. It encourages promptness in meeting obligations. 

5. It encourages all to give freely for the good of the Sunday- 
school and mission work. 

NEW PRICE LIST. 

No. 50— Be Faithful Cards. 100 in package « $ 26 

No. 51— Ever Faithful. 40 in package 50 

No. 52— The Crown. 10 in package 50 

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT. 

A very handsome card with Scripture texts tastefully arranged, 

with the amount deposited printed in the background. 

No. 53— Certificates of Deposit. 100 one cent checks in pack, 
assorted colors $ 35 

No. 54— Certificates of Deposit. 100 two cent checks in pack, 
assorted colors 35 

No. 55— Certificates of Deposit. 100 three cent checks in pack, 
assorted colors 35 

No. 56— Certificates of Deposit. 100 five cent checks in pack, 
assorted colors 35 

No. 57— Certificates of Deposit. 100 one, two, three, and five 
cent checks.... 35 

No. 58— The Faithful Steward— to be used for redeeming the Cer- 
tificates of Deposit. This is a very handsome card, printed in 
several colors, with a beautiful chromo picture on each card, 
12 in package 35 

No. 59— The Pearl. A superb Chromo Card, 8x10 inches, 
suitable for framing. It is designed to redeem the Faithful 
Steward. 10 in package. Price 150 

Address, CENTRAL BOOK CONCERN, 

Oskaloosa, Iowa. 



■ 






^m 



^H 






^1 

■ 




■ 







%<f} 



1 



H 















H ^1 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 665 107 




^lllllll 



